1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT 9 Special Session 10 Friday, December 21, 2001 11 9:00 a.m. 12 Commissioners' Courtroom 13 Kerr County Courthouse 14 Kerrville, Texas 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 PRESENT: FREDERICK L. HENNEKE, Kerr County Judge H. A. "BUSTER" BALDWIN, Commissioner Pct. 1 24 WILLIAM "BILL" WILLIAMS, Commissioner Pct. 2 JONATHAN LETZ, Commissioner Pct. 3 25 LARRY GRIFFIN, Commissioner Pct. 4 2 1 I N D E X December 21, 2001 2 PAGE --- Commissioners Comments 3 3 1.1 Pay Bills 5 1.2 Budget Amendments 6 4 1.3 Late Bills 9 1.4 Approve and Accept Monthly Reports 18 5 2.1 Review Agreement Tracts 18, 19, 20, Twin Springs, 6 set public hearing date for final plat 18 7 2.2 Consider variance to platting requirements of Kerr County Subdivision Rules & Regulations 25 8 2.3 Preliminary plat, Cutoff Business Park 32 9 2.4 Preliminary plat, Live Springs Ranch 47 10 2.12 Discuss revisions to Kerr County Subdivision 11 Rules & Regulations 49 12 2.5 Invitation to County Judge and Commissioners re- garding Regional Judges and Commissioners Court 13 conference on January 23, 2002 58 14 2.6 Discuss possible collaboration between Kerr County and owners of proposed hotel/conference center to 15 be located on Texas Lions Camp property 60 16 2.8 Budget amendments for purchase of unforeseen election supplies due to redistricting 78 17 2.7 Law enforcement liability insurance renewal 86 18 2.9 Salary classification for Jail Administrator 100 19 2.10 Creating one additional Sergeant position in 20 the jail; eliminating Corporal ranking of two positions, reclassifying to jailer positions 126 21 2.11 Authorize Sheriff's Dept. to request funds for 22 video equipment from TX Dept. of Public Safety 130 23 2.13 Date for January joint meeting with City Council 132 24 2.14 Establish maximum amount of $2,400 per year for employees' unreimbursed medical expenses account 25 under new optional medical insurance benefit plan 136 3 1 On Friday, December 21, 2001, at 9:00 a.m., a special 2 meeting of the Kerr County Commissioners Court was held in 3 the Commissioners' Courtroom, Kerr County Courthouse, 4 Kerrville, Texas, and the following proceedings were had in 5 open court: 6 P R O C E E D I N G S 7 JUDGE HENNEKE: Good morning, everybody. 8 It's 9 o'clock in the morning on Friday, December 21st, and 9 we'll call to order the meeting of the Kerr County 10 Commissioners Court. Commissioner Griffin? 11 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yes. And in light of 12 the special time of the year, this holiday season, I've 13 invited our good friend, Pastor John Green of the Hunt 14 Methodist Church to offer the invocation, followed by the 15 pledge of allegiance. 16 (Prayer and pledge of allegiance.) 17 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Thank you, John. 18 JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you, Pastor Green. At 19 this time, any citizen wishing to address the Court on an 20 item not listed on the regular agenda may come forward and 21 do so. Is there any citizen who would like to address the 22 Court on an item not listed on the regular agenda? One more 23 time, is there any citizen who'd like to address the Court 24 on an item not listed on the regular agenda? Seeing none, 25 we'll go directly to the Commissioners' comments, starting 4 1 with Commissioner Griffin. 2 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: No comments this 3 morning, Judge. 4 JUDGE HENNEKE: Commissioner Baldwin? 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Commissioner Griffin 6 does have a comment to make. He and I met with the 911 and 7 the postal service folks a couple of days ago, and all I 8 want to say at this point is, we accomplished more than I 9 dreamed of accomplishing. My good friend may like to take 10 on that one. 11 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yes, very much so. 12 Very productive meeting, and I think working directly with 13 Cindy Guerrero from the San Antonio Postmaster -- or postal 14 system is going to be a big help to us. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's all. 16 JUDGE HENNEKE: Excellent. Very good. 17 Commissioner Williams? 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll just take this 19 opportunity to wish everyone in Kerr County and all those 20 present today a very blessed Christmas and a happy new year, 21 and we'll see you in '02. 22 JUDGE HENNEKE: Commissioner Letz? 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Two -- or one comment, 24 actually. I'd just like to thank an individual, Gordon 25 Morriss, who we got to do the cooking today for the 5 1 briskets, and Bernhard's Meat Market for helping to 2 contribute to that brisket to be cooked. They've always 3 been very helpful to the County and Commissioners Court, and 4 I want to publicly thank both of them. 5 JUDGE HENNEKE: Very good. And I want to 6 give my thanks to Commissioner Letz for arranging for the 7 meat to be donated. Some people have better contacts in the 8 meat industry than others do. That's why we all work 9 together; it doesn't fall on any one person. I also want to 10 extend my best wishes to everyone for a Merry Christmas and 11 Happy Hanukkah and joyful new year. Brief reminder, that 12 the first Commissioners Court meeting in January will be 13 Monday, January the 14th. Hopefully we'll get back onto our 14 regular schedule at that time. And we have a full plate, 15 and we want to go to lunch, so let's get started. Anyone 16 have any questions or comments regarding the bills? 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I have a comment. 18 JUDGE HENNEKE: All right. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Move we pay them. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. 21 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner 22 Baldwin, second by Commissioner Williams, that the Court 23 approve payment of the bills as presented and recommended by 24 the Auditor. Any further questions or comments? If not, 25 all in favor, raise your right hand. 6 1 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 2 JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. 3 (No response.) 4 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Budget 5 amendments. Budget Amendment Number 1 is for the Tax 6 Assessor/Collector. 7 MR. TOMLINSON: I have -- this is a request 8 from the Tax Collector to transfer $322 from Office Supplies 9 to Bonds and Insurance, and it's -- it relates to a bill 10 that's -- that's actually a year old. We have -- there was 11 some confusion between us and the agency that issued the 12 bill, and so we need to transfer -- make this transfer to 13 pay that. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved. 15 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second. 16 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner 17 Baldwin, second by Commissioner Griffin, that the Court 18 approve Budget Amendment Request Number 1 for the Tax 19 Assessor/Collector. You need a hand check for that, Tommy? 20 MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. I have the late bill 21 separate. 22 JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. All in favor of the 23 motion to approve the budget amendment, raise your right 24 hand. 25 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 7 1 JUDGE HENNEKE: Opposed, same sign. 2 (No response.) 3 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. And you 4 have -- 5 MR. TOMLINSON: I have one on -- I handed out 6 one to you for -- for receipt of a grant that's from the 7 Office of Justice programs. It's a federal grant. It's 8 entitled Hill Country Sex Offender Management. It's -- 9 actually, it's for two years, and it's for $49,931.20. In 10 my note, I note that Dwight Sadler with the Detention Center 11 is grant manager, and so I'm requesting that we increase the 12 budget by the $49,931.20, which -- and I listed the line 13 items that are related to that, related to this $49,000. 14 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So we can take in the 15 money? 16 MR. TOMLINSON: We'll take in the money, and 17 then this allows to us spend it. It is in the name of Kerr 18 County, the grant is. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What's it for, 20 specifically? I mean, is it -- 21 MR. TOMLINSON: This -- this portion of it is 22 actually for -- for training people to deal with -- with 23 this problem. 24 JUDGE HENNEKE: It's a multi -- it's a 25 four-county grant for the purpose of surveying the sex 8 1 offender treatment and prevention programs and coming up 2 with some recommendations on how we can improve our 3 treatment of juveniles who are apprehended for sex offender, 4 which, regrettably, is probably in the fastest growing 5 category of juvenile crime that I deal with as Kerr County 6 juvenile judge, and I see the Sheriff shaking his head in 7 the audience. This is -- there were 12 grants granted 8 nationally. Kerr County was the only rural grant applicant 9 to be given a grant for this purpose. 10 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And we don't have any 11 matching funds? 12 JUDGE HENNEKE: No, no matching funds 13 required. 14 MR. TOMLINSON: And I think this is maybe a 15 stepping stone for -- for bigger and better in the future, 16 according to Dwight. That with this program, initially, we 17 can maybe work our way into a larger -- 18 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Grant. 19 MR. TOMLINSON: -- grant. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll move we accept the 21 grant and disburse the proceeds as set forth in the budget 22 amendment. 23 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second. 24 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner Letz, 25 second by Commissioner Griffin, that the Court approve the 9 1 budget amendment and increase the budget by the amount of 2 $49,931.20, accept the grant to be disbursed according to 3 the line items contained in the budget amendment request 4 from the Auditor. Any further questions or comments? If 5 not, all in favor raise your right hand. 6 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 7 JUDGE HENNEKE: Opposed, same sign. 8 (No response.) 9 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Do you have 10 late bills, Tommy? 11 MR. TOMLINSON: Yes, I do. The first one is 12 to First Insurance Agency and it relates to the budget 13 amendment for -- for $322, so I need a hand check for that. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. 15 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second. 16 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner Letz, 17 second by Commissioner Griffin, that the Court approve a 18 late bill and hand check in the amount of $322 payable to 19 First Insurance Agency. Any further questions or comments? 20 If not, all in favor, raise your right hand. 21 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 22 JUDGE HENNEKE: Opposed, same sign. 23 (No response.) 24 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. 25 MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. The next one is to the 10 1 30th Annual County/District Clerk's Seminar for $170. It's 2 for registration for the clerk's seminar to be held on 3 January the 14th through the 17th. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. 6 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner Letz, 7 second by Commissioner Williams, that the Court approve a 8 late bill and authorize a hand check in the amount of $170 9 payable to the 30th Annual County Clerk's Seminar. Any 10 questions or comments? If not, all in favor, raise your 11 right hand. 12 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 13 JUDGE HENNEKE: Opposed, same sign. 14 (No response.) 15 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. 16 MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. The next one is also 17 related to that, and it's for the payment of lodging, to the 18 Hilton College Station for $615.85 for the same period of 19 time. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. 21 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second. 22 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner Letz, 23 second by Commissioner Griffin, that the Court approve a 24 late bill and hand check in the amount of $615.85 payable to 25 the Hilton Hotel College Station for lodging for the 30th 11 1 Annual County Clerk's Seminar. Any questions or comments? 2 If not, all in favor, raise your right hand. 3 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 4 JUDGE HENNEKE: Opposed, same sign. 5 (No response.) 6 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. 7 MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. I have one from Paula 8 Richards Loetz for $250, and it's for court reporting 9 services from -- for the period of 11/29 through 12/6. 10 JUDGE HENNEKE: How much was that, again? 11 MR. TOMLINSON: That's $250. 12 JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved. 14 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second. 15 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner 16 Williams, second by Commissioner Griffin, that the Court 17 approve a late bill and hand check in the amount of $250 18 payable to Paula Richards Loetz for court reporting 19 services. Any questions or comments? If not, all in favor, 20 raise your right hand. 21 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 22 JUDGE HENNEKE: Opposed, same sign. 23 (No response.) 24 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. 25 MR. TOMLINSON: The last one -- no, I have 12 1 two more. The other one is for -- for lodging expenses for 2 J.P. 1 to the Omni Bayfront Hotel. It's for $153.54, and 3 it's for the period of 1/15 through the 17th of January. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. 5 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second. 6 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner Letz, 7 second by Commissioner Griffin, that the Court approve the 8 late bill and hand check in the amount of $153.54 payable to 9 the Omni Bay Hotel for lodging expenses for J.P. 1. 10 MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is that an annual 12 conference? 13 MR. TOMLINSON: I think -- 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Or is he just going 15 down to go fishing? 16 MR. TOMLINSON: It says "training session." 17 I don't know -- 18 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I think that is -- 19 MR. TOMLINSON: It says "Justice Court 20 Training Center." 21 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Training in fly 22 fishing. 23 JUDGE HENNEKE: Any further questions or 24 comments? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand. 25 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 13 1 JUDGE HENNEKE: Opposed, same sign. 2 (No response.) 3 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. 4 MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. The last one is to 5 Stoddard Construction Company for $25,766.73, and it's the 6 interest due on the -- the retainage from -- from the 7 beginning of the contract through October the 31st. I've 8 recalculated the schedule of interest for that period, and 9 I'm in agreement with -- with the amount. And, according to 10 the contract, we do -- we do owe the interest to him on the 11 retainage. So, we weren't -- I just came to the Court to 12 see if you want to pay it now or let the interest run, or 13 what. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, according to the 15 contract, a lot of things have happened. You know, we're 16 supposed to do a lot of things, but I don't -- has -- has 17 our representatives -- or do they sign off on those things? 18 Or is this just something automatic, built in the contract? 19 Or -- 20 MR. TOMLINSON: Well, I actually got this 21 from -- from Keith Longnecker. He forwarded it on to me. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This is for interest 23 on the retainage. Have we released the retainage? 24 JUDGE HENNEKE: No. 25 MR. TOMLINSON: No. 14 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess my question is, I 2 mean, part of that is because of their delays that they 3 caused. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Absolutely. 5 JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, you have to put -- you 6 have to make a distinction here. I mean, by state law, 7 they're entitled to interest on their retainage, which we've 8 retained until they complete the project. We're not 9 releasing any retainage. This is the interest. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 11 JUDGE HENNEKE: That they are entitled to by 12 state law. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But we haven't released 14 it, 'cause they haven't done their job under the contract. 15 If they would have done their job, the interest would have 16 been less, because we're having to keep it longer. I mean, 17 I don't -- I don't disagree that we need to pay the 18 retainage. I disagree with the fact -- the amount that we 19 keep on -- that interest keeps accruing, because it's their 20 fault. I mean, they're making money, you know, because 21 they're not doing the job. 22 JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, it's interest that's 23 accruing because the money's in an interest-bearing account, 24 right? 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 15 1 JUDGE HENNEKE: So it's not money we're 2 taking out of our budget. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, it's not -- 4 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: It's an 5 interest-bearing account. They just get the interest on 6 whatever retainage -- 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's true, too. But it 8 doesn't set well. 9 JUDGE HENNEKE: I totally agree with your 10 sentiment. I don't want to pay them a nickel until they 11 finish the job. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Why would we pay the 13 interest in advance of releasing the retainage? 14 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: State law. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: No. I mean, I think 16 Bill's got it -- I mean, they probably need the money. 17 MR. TOMLINSON: That's your decision. I 18 mean, that's why I brought it here. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Before I make this 20 decision, give me a little guidance here. Why would we 21 release the interest to them before we release the 22 retainage? 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, it's not costing 24 us -- 25 MR. TOMLINSON: There's over -- there's 16 1 really no reason to. I mean, I just -- 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's the answer I'm 3 looking for. 4 MR. TOMLINSON: I mean, I just know that the 5 interest is continuing to accrue. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But it doesn't cost us 7 anything, 'cause that money is set aside in an interest- 8 bearing account, so the only -- I mean, it's just more of an 9 incentive for them. 10 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: The law does require 11 that we zero the interest out every year? 12 MR. TOMLINSON: This is personal opinion, but 13 I thought that maybe if we paid it, it might -- might induce 14 him to finish his job. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I kind of think the 16 other way. Maybe if we don't pay him, it will induce him to 17 finish his job. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What does the law say? 19 That's what's I need to know. 20 JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, we don't have our 21 County Attorney in here, and I'm not wearing my lawyer's 22 hat. I will say that there is a provision in state law 23 which requires the accrual of interest on retainage. I 24 mean, the County's required to put the retainage in an 25 interest-bearing account, and the contractor's entitled to 17 1 the interest on the retainage. Now, when he's entitled to 2 it and under what circumstances -- 3 MR. TOMLINSON: I don't think -- I don't 4 think the law says. I mean -- 5 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Why don't we ask for 6 an opinion from our County Attorney before -- but before we 7 do anything? Because if we don't have to pay it, then I 8 would agree that we don't pay it until we -- until he 9 finishes the job, we pay him the retainage and the interest. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That would be my 11 sentiment. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm in agreement with 13 that. Of course, that will take a good six months. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's more money. 15 MR. TOMLINSON: The County Attorney does have 16 this bill, and I had a conversation with him about it, but I 17 don't have an answer. 18 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I would like to defer 19 it. 20 JUDGE HENNEKE: I believe the consensus is to 21 defer it until we have more definitive legal advice. 22 (Discussion off the record.) 23 JUDGE HENNEKE: Anything else, Tommy? 24 MR. TOMLINSON: No, that's all I have. 25 JUDGE HENNEKE: At this time, I would accept 18 1 a motion to approve and accept the monthly reports as 2 presented. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. 4 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second. 5 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner Letz, 6 second by Commissioner Griffin, that the Court approve and 7 accept the monthly reports as presented. Any further 8 questions or comments? If not, all in favor, raise your 9 right hand. 10 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 11 JUDGE HENNEKE: Opposed, same sign. 12 (No response.) 13 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Having 14 dispatched with the preliminaries, we move on to the main 15 event here. First item for consideration is Item Number 1, 16 review agreement for Tracts 18, 19, and 20 of Twin Springs 17 and set a public hearing date for final plat of same, 18 Precinct 2. Commissioner Williams. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm going to defer to 20 the County Engineer, and only with one additional comment. 21 I just distributed to members of the Court and to the 22 engineer this morning some information from Mr. -- is that 23 -- Gene Suess and Mr. Ronald Canter, who are owners of 24 property in Twin Springs Ranch, and they raised some 25 questions which I think are relevant, and there are some 19 1 responses on -- from the developer or his representatives. 2 And, with that, let's get into it. 3 MR. JOHNSTON: Lee? Are you -- Lee Voelkel 4 put this on the agenda. I think he's the expert on this. 5 MR. VOELKEL: Good morning. Not the expert. 6 Lee Voelkel. I just now read the letter as y'all were 7 talking about another item, so this is the first time I've 8 seen it. I think those are some legal issues that I'm not 9 qualified to answer. I think the appropriate thing to do, 10 in my mind, would be to set a date for the public hearing, 11 have these people notified, which they have not been done 12 yet, which of course is part of the process, and have 13 Mr. Burgess' attorney -- Mr. Burgess being the owner of the 14 property and the one wishing to do the replat -- be prepared 15 at that meeting to answer these questions for you people. 16 And if there are other questions that people would have, 17 that maybe he can do that also. The document that I 18 delivered to Frank was the paper that was prepared by Rit 19 Jons; he's the attorney for Mr. Burgess. That, in my mind, 20 allowed -- I guess, in his mind, allowed all of this to be 21 legal and take place. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I think it 23 raises some questions in and of itself, Lee. 24 MR. VOELKEL: Certainly. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It didn't -- the 20 1 letter that you provided -- or the copy of the Addendum to 2 Farm and Ranch Contract between Twin Springs and the 3 purchaser, Mr. Burgess, didn't really address the questions 4 that the Court raised at the last meeting. It only said 5 that the property owner and the seller agreed to make things 6 try to happen, but it didn't agree -- did not address the 7 specific questions with respect to the roads that were 8 raised the last time. I think those questions with regard 9 to the -- to the roads and the Twin Springs Ranch homeowners 10 group, property owners group, are very relevant. They need 11 to be addressed. 12 MR. VOELKEL: I agree with that. I just now 13 briefly read it. I don't know exactly what all is in there; 14 I haven't had time to review it. I thought the question 15 with the Court last time, Mr. Williams, was whether or not 16 it was legal to bring in property from another subdivision 17 into the Twin Springs Subdivisions, and that's what brought 18 about that letter that I brought for -- from Mr. Jons, which 19 I thought answered that question. I didn't -- I wasn't sure 20 that we were talking about roads until I read this this 21 morning. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, we did get into 23 roads a little bit last time, if you recall, because what 24 you're doing is carving up Twin Springs Ranch as we know it 25 today. 21 1 MR. VOELKEL: Correct. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And you're taking 3 Creekwood V, a piece of it, and you're creating a whole new 4 entity. Roads have to go from someplace to someplace, and 5 there's not a plan to bring them out on -- on Creekwood 6 Drive in the area coming out through Creekwood, so the plan 7 is to go out through Twin Springs Ranch, and that creates 8 another set of questions about the relevancy of that, the 9 number of -- the traffic, whether or not the property owners 10 have been advised, whether they've signed off on it, and a 11 whole raft of other questions that were raised today in this 12 letter. 13 MR. VOELKEL: Yes. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: By this gentleman 15 from Twin Springs. 16 MR. VOELKEL: Again, I think those are legal 17 questions that I'm just not qualified to answer. I wish Mr. 18 Jons would have been able to have been here this morning, 19 but we didn't know that this letter existed. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: My comment is -- I mean, 21 if the property -- and we discussed this last time, too. If 22 the route's going to be to revise Twin Springs, and that's 23 the route Mr. Burgess wants to take, then I think we should 24 go ahead and set the public hearing and get all this on the 25 table. There is another -- a different option of creating a 22 1 new subdivision, or revising. I guess either way you would 2 have to revise Twin Springs, but you could cut it out and 3 start a new subdivision instead of adjoining a different 4 subdivision. But either way, I guess you can revise Twin 5 Springs. I think we ought to at least get that step done, 6 get that public hearing so we get all the parties to give us 7 the information, get the legal -- and there's no reason that 8 we need to make a decision immediately after that public 9 hearing. We would receive the information, and then we, you 10 know, tell Mr. Burgess or Twin Springs or everybody else, 11 okay, we have the information. This is what came out. 12 MR. JOHNSTON: During the public hearing, 13 they could answer these -- have their attorney -- 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That they get -- 15 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: All at once. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: To me, it's a way to get 17 the whole process moving. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's fine. 19 MR. VOELKEL: Also, in case there are other 20 properties -- property owners that have concerns, if 21 notification has been sent, it will give them a chance to 22 come forward too, if they have concerns, and express those. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, meeting dates in 24 January are the -- 25 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: 14th and 28th. 23 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 28th. 2 JUDGE HENNEKE: 14th and -- 3 MS. SOVIL: 28th. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'd go with February. 5 (Discussion off the record.) 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 28th would be good. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's a month away, but 8 that's a lot for our staff -- or for Jannett's staff to get 9 done between now and New Year's. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. First meeting 11 in February work for you guys? 12 MR. VOELKEL: Yes, sir, that would be fine. 13 MS. SOVIL: 11th. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I would move a public 15 hearing be set on final plat for Tracts 18, 19, and 20 of 16 Twin Springs Ranch for February 14th. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 11th. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 11th. February 11th. 19 Lost three days. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's the reason I'm 21 number one. 22 (Laughter.) 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Glad you're on top of 24 that this morning. February 11th. 10:00 a.m.? 25 MR. VOELKEL: Thank you, sir. 24 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: February 11th, 2 10 a.m. So moved. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. 4 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner 5 Williams, second by Commissioner Baldwin, that the Court set 6 a public hearing for the final plat of Tracts 18, 19, and 20 7 of Twin Springs Subdivision for February the 11th, Year 8 2002, at 10 o'clock in the morning here in the Kerr County 9 Commissioners' Courtroom. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, can I just make -- 11 MS. PIEPER: Can the developer supply me with 12 the names and addresses of the landowners? 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What was the 14 question? 15 JUDGE HENNEKE: The developers are required 16 to provide you with the names and addresses of the 17 landowners, and you'll need those by January the 4th. 18 MS. PIEPER: That will be fine. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Only comment I have -- 20 and I don't know if Mr. Burgess is here, but if -- Lee? 21 MR. VOELKEL: Yes, sir? 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: If you could get it back 23 to Mr. Burgess that my gut feeling is -- that my personal 24 opinion is that, unless all these questions are resolved, 25 there's not going to be a final plat approval on that date. 25 1 It's just to receive information and how to try to work out 2 these issues. 3 MR. VOELKEL: Sure. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Customarily, we do one, 5 then the other. I want to be clear, I don't anticipate that 6 happening in this one unless it's resolved. 7 MR. VOELKEL: Okay, sure thing. 8 JUDGE HENNEKE: Any questions or comments on 9 the motion to set the public hearing? All in favor, raise 10 your right hand. 11 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 12 JUDGE HENNEKE: Opposed, same sign. 13 (No response.) 14 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Item Number 15 2, consider a variance, platting requirements of Kerr County 16 Subdivision Rules and Regulations, Precinct 4. Commissioner 17 Griffin. 18 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yes. There was 19 pending a later agenda item where we're going to talk 20 potential revision to the Subdivision Rules and Regulations. 21 This was a -- a good example of one of the things that that 22 potential rewrite will address. I've got a 10-acre tract 23 that's being divided in half to 5 acres, with access along 24 the existing county road to both tracts after being divided, 25 and the question is, what is required -- what does the owner 26 1 have to do? And, under our current rules, he would have to 2 go through -- technically, have to go through the entire 3 platting process. And we're going to look a little bit 4 later at revising that to simplify -- greatly simplify the 5 platting requirement, and in so doing -- and because of 6 that, we're asking -- I would ask that the Court, and I'll 7 make a motion that we grant a variance in this case, pending 8 that rewrite of the rule, because this is a clear-cut case, 9 I think, that it demonstrates the need for another look at 10 this particular rule. Jonathan and I have talked about 11 this. You may have some more comment. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the comment is, 13 you know, the motion probably is a little bit more specific, 14 is that -- and I mean regarding the variance. The only -- 15 if this tract is -- an example is, this tract would qualify 16 under a statewide exemption if it was 10 acres or more. The 17 reason that it doesn't is because it's 5 acres, but that 18 still -- and there's no roads involved. There's a -- it's 19 an acreage limitation put on by the County that's required 20 this to get platted. I personally think it's a good idea to 21 get it platted, from the standpoint that we keep a record of 22 what's going on in the county. But, since there are no 23 roads -- and this is kind of the logic that -- two reasons 24 why this would fall under the new provisions, if they're 25 adopted later on, is that there's no road construction at 27 1 all on this subdivision. It's -- basically, a man is 2 dividing his 10-acre tract in half, into two lots that both 3 meet our minimum requirements. So, there's no roads there, 4 and it's a very -- it's a very small subdivision. 5 And, under our current rules, you know, there 6 is no allowance for a small subdivision to be created, you 7 know, a couple-lot subdivision. And that's, I think -- and 8 that's been brought to our attention, I think, several times 9 before. So, I tried to, when we get to that later agenda 10 item, simplify that process. The timing is -- you know, I 11 talked to Mr. Brown about this one. I said his timing was 12 not real good, from the standpoint that if he would have 13 waited a couple weeks, he probably would have been able to 14 sail right through. It's a little bit more convoluted now, 15 but he needs to do it when he needs to do it, not our 16 schedule. So, I support the variance. I think the -- and 17 the variance is -- 18 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: To the platting 19 requirement. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: To the platting process. 21 I think we still need to have it platted. I recommend that 22 we handle it at one -- at one visit. I'm trying to think; 23 is this the visit? 24 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yes, this is the 25 visit. That we approve the plat as presented in one visit, 28 1 and that we -- I think the new rule would -- would also 2 allow for, and so we are granting a variance to the platting 3 requirement as written in the -- currently in the rule. 4 It's still platted, but all of the loops don't have to be 5 gone through. That's the -- 6 MR. JOHNSTON: Don't they have to bring the 7 plat, actually, in before you can approve it? 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It will be approved 9 subject to them meeting certain requirements that need to be 10 met. What we're giving a variance to -- they're giving a 11 variance specifically to Headwaters signing off on the plat, 12 a variance to U.G.R.A. signing off, because it meets -- it 13 doesn't come under water availability. It's already -- it's 14 covered under that minimum requirement, and it meets our 15 minimum lot size, which U.G.R.A. -- and there is a way to 16 build a septic system here. It may be expensive, but 17 there's a way, so it's waiving those two certifications. 18 And then it would also be -- my recommendation would be to 19 lower the -- the County's fee to -- you know, what is it, 20 Jannett, on a subdivision now? $200? On a plat? 21 MS. PIEPER: For filing a plat? 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. 23 MS. PIEPER: It's $50. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: $50 for preliminary and 25 $50 for final? 29 1 MS. PIEPER: Mm-hmm. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Lowering it to a final 3 plat, basically eliminating the preliminary platting process 4 and having a $50 platting fee for the County. It still 5 needs to have the mylar. They still need to go to 911 to 6 sign off on the name; all that is still required, but we're 7 only limiting -- 8 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: One-shot deal. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But we would -- 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The way I read your 11 later item dealing with that, it seems like to me that 12 that -- the later actually addresses almost everything that 13 you have just said. Is this one written in such a way that 14 we need -- I mean, it has to be dealt with today? We can't 15 wait until we change that rule and then it would just be 16 automatic? I mean -- 17 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right. The problem 18 is -- 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We're granting a 20 variance against something here. 21 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: The rule change will 22 probably take a rather -- it may take a meeting or two. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think, yeah. 24 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: To get that finalized. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I understand. But, I 30 1 mean, I like what the later item -- I kind of like what it 2 is, and it seems like to me that -- well, I mean, that's 3 fine. If it needs -- this needs to move on, that's fine, 4 but -- 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, Mr. Brown's here. 6 I mean, I don't know -- 7 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Well, and the real 8 issue, I think, is that you've got an existing contract on 9 the -- the other 5-acre tract. It's been there for some 10 time. We've already wrestled with this. It's going to be a 11 while longer, but this one clearly meets the intent of the 12 new rewrite. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: There was a question 14 early on, and I gave him bad advice on the phone, Mr. Brown. 15 I thought it didn't need to be platted. Part of the 16 reason -- I mean, I think Larry already -- I was on my 17 mobile phone, like I usually am, and I forgot about the 18 10-acre requirement. I was thinking through everything, and 19 that one exception -- you know. 20 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So this -- the 21 variance would -- would solve the immediate problem, and I 22 think it's obvious that we're going to address the overall 23 issue for the rewrite of the rule, so I'll make a motion 24 that we -- that we do grant the variance, and that we 25 approve the plat as presented when we have a plat. 31 1 JUDGE HENNEKE: So -- is that a second? 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's a second. 3 JUDGE HENNEKE: The motion is to grant a 4 variance from the certification by Headwaters and the 5 U.G.R.A. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And eliminate the 7 preliminary platting process. 8 JUDGE HENNEKE: And eliminate the preliminary 9 platting process and approve the plat, subject to the 10 presentation of the appropriate mylar, so it doesn't have to 11 be put on the agenda again. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 13 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That's correct. 14 JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. Does everyone 15 understand where we're headed with that? So, we have a 16 motion by Commissioner Griffin, second by Commissioner Letz, 17 that with respect to the 10-acre tract owned by Alan Brown, 18 located off Goat Creek Road, part of the Van Hoosier Ranch, 19 that the Commissioners Court grant a variance to the 20 certification by the Headwaters Groundwater Management 21 District, as well as the Upper Guadalupe River Authority, 22 and as well as the preliminary plat requirement, and approve 23 the plat, subject to presentation to the County Judge of the 24 appropriate mylar signed off by 911 and, I guess, TexDOT. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And utility companies. 32 1 JUDGE HENNEKE: And the utility company. Got 2 that, Alan? 3 MR. BROWN: I believe so. 4 JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. Any further questions 5 or comments? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand. 6 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 7 JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. 8 (No response.) 9 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I would apologize -- the 11 revision was talked about for some time -- not getting them 12 to court sooner. That would have eliminated this confusion. 13 JUDGE HENNEKE: We'll move along. Item 14 Number 3, consider approval of a preliminary plat for Cutoff 15 Business Park, Precinct 4. Commissioner Griffin. 16 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yes. I'll refer this 17 one to Franklin. I think the checklist has been run. The 18 plat is in your package, the preliminary. There were some 19 other questions that were raised a little bit earlier. Did 20 you have a chance to get -- 21 MR. JOHNSTON: The preliminary plat was put 22 on the agenda. I went out and checked the site, and also 23 went through the transcript of the discussion last time it 24 was here. There were a number of issues that hadn't been 25 resolved, so I kind of made a checklist here of some of the 33 1 issues. The developer has a copy of this letter; maybe he'd 2 want to address those things, maybe see what they plan on. 3 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I would suggest, 4 perhaps, that you -- you read the comment that you made in 5 your memo that you handed me this morning, and then let's 6 let -- let the owner respond on how that will be addressed. 7 MR. JOHNSTON: These are not in any necessary 8 order. I just put them down as I went through the 9 transcript. We talked last time about restricting this 10 property to be only commercial property and not, at some 11 future time, residential property. That's just a matter of 12 putting the note on the plat. That's not on the plat now. 13 Question about the road -- 14 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Before we go any 15 farther, any problem with getting that on the plat? 16 (Mr. Jenschke shook his head.) 17 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Okay. 18 MR. JOHNSTON: Question about the road, since 19 it says public road -- it's not -- it never was -- it says 20 Business Drive, a public roadway, but it never was designed. 21 It's whether or not they want it to be a County-maintained 22 road or a private road. 23 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: It's my understanding 24 that all the roads were to be private. Is that not true? 25 MR. JENSCHKE: We put them in to County 34 1 specifications. And they had -- you know, in fact, we had, 2 on the base -- 3 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Please identify 4 yourself for the court reporter. 5 MR. JENSCHKE: Stephen Jenschke. When we put 6 the base -- the subgrade in, we -- the County came out and 7 said it didn't -- the p.i. wasn't low enough, and so we had 8 to buy a truck of lime to mix in with the base material to 9 get it down to their -- what they wanted. And so, anyway, 10 it's put in to County specifications and everything, and 11 they should have had all the information over there. I 12 talked to the man over this morning after I found out about 13 this here, and he said that he at some point talked to you, 14 Franklin, and had faxed over the test results and all that 15 stuff. So, you know, he met -- 16 MR. JOHNSTON: I wasn't -- I don't think we 17 have the final test results on the base. 18 MR. JENSCHKE: Okay. Well, he was going to 19 fax them back over to your office again this morning, and he 20 met with your assistant out there, who told us that we had 21 to -- to lower the p.i. -- the p.i. on the -- on the -- 22 MR. JOHNSTON: I'll check that, but I didn't 23 get any other calls for inspection. 24 MR. JENSCHKE: Okay. Well, he -- I was not 25 aware of that until I read this this morning. And -- but he 35 1 said he was faxing the information over to your office on 2 all the test results. 3 MR. JOHNSTON: So you're intending that to be 4 a County-maintained road? 5 MR. JENSCHKE: Yes. In that regard, there's 6 a photo, I think, in there. The road needs to have better 7 drainage. If we're going to maintain -- I think Photo 5 and 8 6 show that the road, as such, the plat with the shoulder -- 9 with the rest of the right-of-way, and the water just sets 10 along the side of the asphalt. There's some ruts there now. 11 It needs to have better drainage, or the road would 12 deteriorate. 13 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So I take it, then, 14 that that part is not to County standards? 15 MR. JOHNSTON: Right. 16 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Any problem in solving 17 that to bring it to County standards? 18 MR. JENSCHKE: We have not completed the 19 final drainage ditch for the simple reason that we didn't 20 actually know what we were going to be required to do as it 21 wound up. We have an engineer's drawing. Vordenbaum did 22 that with -- and we have the engineer's drawing, but we have 23 not done any of the drainage work. 24 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Okay. So, the 25 drainage can be put in? 36 1 MR. JENSCHKE: Yes. 2 MR. JOHNSTON: Ditch is on the side of the 3 road. 4 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Okay. Next item? 5 MR. JOHNSTON: That's just a technical thing 6 on the plat. The subdivision is not marked out on the 7 location map. It just needs to be outlined, a boundary, to 8 draw it out where it's located. 9 MR. JENSCHKE: Yes, no problem. 10 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Okay. Number 4. 11 MR. JOHNSTON: Its kind of what we were 12 talking about. The drainage easement channels are, you 13 know, not currently in place, not built. There's actually 14 some kind of alternate swales, I guess, that will eventually 15 run into those -- 16 MR. JENSCHKE: We just left it natural, as it 17 was before, before it was cleared and everything. We just 18 left the drainage as it was, you know, so -- so wherever the 19 water flowed before we started anything, that's where it 20 still flows. Yes. 21 MR. JOHNSTON: The only concern I had is, at 22 the end of the cul-de-sac, they're showing a 20-foot-wide 23 drainage easement, which is actually 2 foot deep and some 24 distance wide on the bottom -- 5 foot wide. 25 MR. JENSCHKE: Correct. 37 1 MR. JOHNSTON: But now there's a water meter, 2 telephone pole right in the middle of that. 3 MR. JENSCHKE: We just have to go around 4 that. I think it -- yeah. Yeah. And I think I just pour a 5 concrete deal around that to solve it. 6 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Oh, okay. So that can 7 be solved, okay. What's the next one? 8 MR. JOHNSTON: Utility lines call for zero to 9 4 foot for the property line. I think your drawing shows 8 10 foot, the property line. Is that in the actual ditch area 11 of the road? Or I think they're placed on the road? 12 MR. JENSCHKE: Yes. KPUB completed those 13 last -- last week, and -- 14 MR. JOHNSTON: I was talking about the water 15 line. 16 MR. JENSCHKE: Oh, the water line. 17 MR. JOHNSTON: Is that under the cul-de-sac, 18 under the road? Or is it -- 19 MR. JENSCHKE: It runs -- no, it's not under 20 the road. No, it's not under the road. The -- other 21 than -- I'm trying to remember. They might have cut across 22 on the -- on the cul-de-sac there. I believe that's where 23 it -- 24 MR. JOHNSTON: Is that going to have any 25 effect on proper ditching on the side of the road? 38 1 MR. JENSCHKE: No. 2 MR. JOHNSTON: Deep enough? 3 MR. JENSCHKE: Yeah. They -- it's at least 4 3 feet deep. At least. 5 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Okay. So, that can be 6 -- before a final plat would come forward, that could all be 7 fixed. I mean, that could be -- 8 MR. JOHNSTON: Well, I think it's in place. 9 I'd say leave it. 10 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yeah, okay. So -- 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We'd have to give a -- 12 how -- what's our rule? I mean -- well, we have to give a 13 variance to get 8 feet? 14 MR. JOHNSTON: Yeah, I think so. The reason 15 for it being 8 feet instead of 4 feet is -- 16 MR. JENSCHKE: I don't know, Franklin. I 17 think that -- and I'll check with Jimmy Whelan, but I 18 believe that that's a -- we've got approximately -- what? I 19 think a 15 -- don't we have a 15-foot easement on each side? 20 Yeah. I was thinking -- you may be right. I'll have to 21 check. 22 MR. JOHNSTON: It shows -- 23 MR. JENSCHKE: I was thinking it was 10 foot 24 on either side of the road base, but it's actually 15, so -- 25 and I think they just went down the center of that, but let 39 1 me check on that and I'll let you know on that. 2 MR. JOHNSTON: Okay. And -- well, out there, 3 there's actually a new building, number one. I think our 4 rules say no building will be done until the final plat's 5 approved. 6 MR. JENSCHKE: We did that. That's my 7 personal building, and we started that about a year -- about 8 a year ago, and we've just been working on it, you know, as 9 we -- as we could and everything. 10 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So, that building 11 would exist even if there were no subdivision. 12 MR. JENSCHKE: That's right. 13 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I don't think we can 14 say you can't do that. 15 JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, the rules say you 16 can't -- 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's right. 18 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Well, you can't -- 19 JUDGE HENNEKE: -- put a building on there. 20 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: You can't subdivide 21 it. What if you just had an "X"-acre tract there, and 22 somebody wants to go out and build a building on it? They 23 can do that. 24 JUDGE HENNEKE: If the building was there -- 25 the building is there before it comes to be subdivided, 40 1 that's fine, but if the they construct a building after the 2 subdivision process has started, then that's a violation of 3 the rules. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I think you're -- 5 the Judge is right, but if you said -- if it started a year 6 ago, that building was in construction when the subdivision 7 started. 8 MR. JOHNSTON: Did it start before you 9 started on this process? 10 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That's what I heard. 11 MR. JENSCHKE: Yeah. 12 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: If that started -- if 13 you started constructing the building on your property, then 14 said, "Hey, I'm going to have a subdivision," there's no way 15 we can say that you can't build on your property. That was 16 my point. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: If the building -- I 18 mean, if the building started first, you can't do anything, 19 but you can't start it afterwards, I would say, based on our 20 rule. I don't know when the building started or when the 21 subdivision process started. 22 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: The risk that a 23 property owner takes in that regard is the subdivision might 24 not be approved, so the plan you have for the building might 25 not work, you know, if -- but that's a risk -- if you start 41 1 building before you start the subdividing process, that's a 2 risk that the owner takes, but that's his right to do so, I 3 would think. 4 MR. JOHNSTON: I have a question about the 5 drainage study, itself. I think our rule number 5.06(b) 6 says that the water leaving the site post-construction is 7 less than what the preconstruction runoff figures are by a 8 number of percentages that are in that paragraph. The study 9 that we have in from Vordenbaum Engineering shows an actual 10 increase leaving post-construction. That probably would 11 require a variance. Their report says there's a negligible 12 effect downstream, but it's not really quantified. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- I mean, to me, 14 and going off memory, this has been the biggest holdup, 15 really, is the drainage issue, and I think it's just -- I 16 mean, the drainage issue has got to be resolved before the 17 final plat can get approved. You know -- you know, that's 18 just something -- I mean -- 19 MR. JOHNSTON: I think we need to decide 20 whether or not to grant a variance or go by what's in the 21 Subdivision Rules, 'cause right now it's not according to 22 Subdivision Rules. 23 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Well, if the drainage 24 study shows that you can't meet Subdivision Rules, you ask 25 for a variance. But we don't know that yet, I don't think, 42 1 because the drainage hasn't been finished. And if -- 2 MR. JOHNSTON: Well, the study's -- the 3 theoretical -- the study says it doesn't -- it's not 4 designed right now for our rules. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm not inclined to give 6 drainage variances very much. That -- you know. 7 JUDGE HENNEKE: Neither am I. 8 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: See, I'm trying to 9 understand how you can increase the flow. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Velocity. 11 MR. JOHNSTON: Velocity. 12 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: The velocity. If the 13 drainage ditching and all is the way it was shown on the 14 proposal, that's what I -- 15 MR. JOHNSTON: They say it increases it, 16 what, 15 percent or so? 17 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Oh, that was with the 18 design? 19 MR. JOHNSTON: That's with the design, yes. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, that's -- you 21 know, you get into an area we have to rely on Vordenbaum. 22 If Vordenbaum says it's going to increase the velocity or 23 whatever, I mean -- 24 MR. JOHNSTON: I think ours say it should be 25 75 percent of the preconstruction. This says it's 43 1 15 percent more, so it's a little bit different there. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And, I mean -- 3 MR. JOHNSTON: From, like, two -- each one is 4 different, but -- 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Variances, I'm -- you 6 know, I don't like them a lot. Drainage is an area that, to 7 me, there's got to be a very good reason, and it's going to 8 take an engineer to pretty much give a reason, to me. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What's the best 10 solution to a velocity problem? Retention, basically? 11 MR. JOHNSTON: Well, retention is one. I 12 think putting things in the -- that drainage channel to slow 13 the water down is another. Velocity dissipaters. 14 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: But that's all doable? 15 MR. JOHNSTON: It's all doable, yes. 16 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: We can still approve 17 the preliminary plat based on the contingency that it has to 18 meet all the requirements of the Subdivision Rules before 19 the final. Okay. Next? 20 MR. JOHNSTON: We went over Part B of that, 21 is the road needs a ditch -- needs ditches. Part C we went 22 over already also. 23 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Okay. 24 MR. JOHNSTON: Number 9, I think we went over 25 that also. They didn't call for inspection, but we can 44 1 get -- if they have reports, they can send them to us. This 2 is also in the ETJ of Ingram, so these variances that we 3 might consider also need to be approved by them. 4 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: At this point, though, 5 we're not considering any variances. There's no variances 6 on the table until -- 7 MR. JOHNSTON: Right. 8 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: -- we know that the -- 9 MR. JOHNSTON: Except we haven't talked 10 about -- 11 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: We figure out they 12 can't do what the Subdivision Rules say. 13 MR. JOHNSTON: I would think we need to get a 14 variance for lot size. All these are less than 5 acres. 15 This subdivision does not average 5 acres. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's residential. 17 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: We could -- 18 MR. JOHNSTON: We talked about that last 19 time. I don't remember the result. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that would 21 require a variance, because it would be -- we acknowledged 22 earlier that -- and approved that -- I mean, we 23 intentionally, I think, did not try to address business 24 parks in our Subdivision Rules. 25 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And that's where -- 45 1 that's where we talked about the note has to be on the plat, 2 it can't be used for residential purposes. That was the 3 reason for that. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. Or the variance 5 -- whenever that comes back for final plat, that -- I mean, 6 any variances that are going to be requested needs to be 7 specifically set out in the agenda item. 8 MR. JOHNSTON: Mm-hmm. Would that be a -- 9 would that need to have a variance? 10 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yes. Yes. And maybe 11 later on we can address commercial stuff in the Subdivision 12 Rules. But I think we could grant that variance on the 13 preliminary plat, could we not, for lot size? 14 JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, you grant a variance on 15 final. 16 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right. 17 JUDGE HENNEKE: That's when we actually 18 technically grant the variance, is the final one. If you 19 approve the preliminary plat with the lot sizes that are 20 shown, you're indicating that -- unless you make a caveat 21 that you have to change them, you're indicating that you are 22 accepting the lot sizes. 23 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I will make a motion, 24 then -- 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Larry, I've got a 46 1 question. Franklin, back to this Number 9, the base and 2 pavement and all that, that you had gone out and inspected 3 as the County Engineer, inspected on the base part of it. 4 MR. JOHNSTON: Sub-base. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sub-base. And the 6 rest of it we have not inspected? 7 MR. JOHNSTON: No. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And so you're going to 9 rely on some report from somebody. Who is that somebody? 10 MR. JOHNSTON: Who did the report? 11 MR. JENSCHKE: I would assume that would be 12 Robert Kichner out of San Antonio. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Good enough. I'm 14 sorry, Larry. 15 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: No problem. I'll make 16 a motion that we approve the preliminary plat for Cutoff 17 Business Park, with the proviso that all of the requirements 18 of the Subdivision Rules must be met before final plat 19 approval. 20 JUDGE HENNEKE: Or variances. 21 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Or variances. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 23 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner 24 Griffin, second by Commissioner Letz, that the Court approve 25 the preliminary plat for Cutoff Business Park in Precinct 4, 47 1 with the proviso that all requirements of the Kerr County 2 Subdivision Rules and Regulations must be satisfied prior to 3 the final plat, unless a specific variance is requested and 4 granted thereto. Any other questions or comments? If not, 5 all in favor, raise your right hand. 6 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 7 JUDGE HENNEKE: Opposed, same sign. 8 (No response.) 9 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Next item, 10 Item Number 4, is to consider the approval of a preliminary 11 plat for Live Springs Ranch, Precinct 4. Commissioner 12 Griffin. 13 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I defer to the County 14 Engineer on this one. 15 MR. JOHNSTON: I went out and looked at the 16 site, drove up the preliminary road; it's not been built 17 yet, but there's kind of a road there. Only comment I had, 18 where the road crosses a little stream -- I guess that's the 19 live spring. 20 MR. VOELKEL: I think so. 21 MR. JOHNSTON: There needs to be a little 22 drainage study there to size culverts and all. The status 23 of the road, I talked with the developer and the contractor 24 when I was out there. I don't know if they're in court. 25 MR. VOELKEL: He's not here this morning, no, 48 1 sir. 2 MR. JOHNSTON: He said he wanted a 3 County-maintained road with a gate. I told him he couldn't 4 have one, had to have one or the other. Had to be either 5 private with a gate or County-maintained without a gate, and 6 so I'm -- do you know what he plans on that? He wanted to 7 keep his ag exemption, wanted livestock in there until he 8 sold the lots, so he wanted it fenced. 9 MR. VOELKEL: My understanding is that he 10 will build a public road, a County-maintained public road 11 built to the County standards without a gate. 12 MR. JOHNSTON: Without a gate, okay. 13 MR. VOELKEL: Public road. 14 MR. JOHNSTON: Then, where it says on the 15 plat "50-foot right-of-way," that's actually a typo. It's 16 60-foot right-of-way. Right? 17 MR. VOELKEL: Correct. 18 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: It is 60 foot? 19 MR. JOHNSTON: 60 foot. 20 MR. VOELKEL: It's 60 foot, yes, sir. 21 MR. JOHNSTON: That's the only comments I 22 have. I'd recommend approval. 23 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Okay. I move that we 24 approve the preliminary plat as presented, with the notation 25 that the proposed public road is 60 foot wide, as opposed to 49 1 what's shown on the preliminary plat -- draft at this point. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 3 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner 4 Griffin, second by Commissioner Letz, that the Court approve 5 the preliminary plat for Live Springs Ranch in Precinct 4, 6 as presented, with the correction that the right-of-way on 7 the proposed public road is 60 foot instead of 50 foot. Any 8 questions or comments? If not, all in favor, raise your 9 right hand. 10 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 11 JUDGE HENNEKE: Opposed, same sign. 12 (No response.) 13 JUDGE HENNEKE: I'm going to suggest, since 14 we're talking about subdivisions, that we go ahead and do 15 Item Number 12, which is the proposed revisions to the Kerr 16 County Subdivision Rules and Regulations. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't think we need to 18 spend a whole lot of time on this. I really -- I put it 19 down to cover the basic -- at least not today -- some basic 20 ideas and concepts of revising things, with the basic intent 21 being to make the process a lot simpler for very small 22 subdivisions, and also -- and this would also cover the 23 situation where we have combined lots. And I arbitrarily 24 picked -- I think if it's three lots or less. That's -- the 25 Commissioner would then have the ability to bring this to 50 1 the Court just one time under a final plat; that wouldn't be 2 a preliminary plat. If there is a situation where the 3 Commissioner thinks this needs to go through the full 4 process, it would still take two visits to the Court. But 5 whoever can convince the Commissioner that, you know, this 6 is just a minor situation, such as the one we had with Mr. 7 Brown earlier and the one we had several weeks ago in 8 Creekwood, where a guy was basically eliminating a lot line, 9 that can be handled at one time to the Court, and it would 10 also -- well, that's -- and also, it will be a cheaper 11 process for the individual. 12 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Since, then, they only 13 have one final. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Be one final fee for the 15 County; one $50 fee, as opposed to two $50 fees. And we're 16 also -- and I know we have -- that's probably why we have a 17 Headwaters board member and General Manager here in the 18 audience, possibly because of the language that -- which is 19 taking them off -- or recommending, anyway, that we take 20 Headwaters off of some situations, which will be these small 21 plats. And also U.G.R.A., we're taking off from the 22 O.S.S.F. standpoint, and also, I think, from a floodplain 23 standpoint. And my logic is that if a -- if these lots come 24 in under our minimum requirements, if you have a 5-acre lot 25 and no variance required, you can put a well on it. It 51 1 doesn't -- isn't subject to our water availability, 'cause 2 you have to have, I guess, five lots for water availability 3 to even kick in. And you can -- a septic system can be 4 devised. 5 So, I think we should distribute the final 6 plat to everyone that currently signs off on it, but I don't 7 see any reason to, one, burden Headwaters or U.G.R.A., or 8 for the developer to pay the fees related to that. And the 9 fees -- they get pretty expensive. When you add up all the 10 fees, you're probably, I imagine, close to $1,000, minimum 11 charge, and that doesn't even, you know, count what they -- 12 what these surveyors are going to hold these people up for 13 trying to do these little things. But -- so, anyway, that's 14 another -- that's a second part of it. And I have here, 15 just to hand out so everyone can look at it, is the current 16 fee structure, and this is something I think we need to get 17 some feedback from -- you know -- 18 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Jonathan, let me 19 interject a question while you're handing that out. So, 20 there's nothing that says -- obviously, if someone's going 21 to put in a septic system, they still have to follow all the 22 rules. If they're going to put in a well, they still have 23 to follow Headwaters' rules and all that for the permitting 24 and so on. This only relates to the platting process, is 25 what you're talking about revising. And I think that's a 52 1 good idea, because in a very simple case where the lot sizes 2 are big enough and it fits under the state regs and our 3 rules, we can expedite the platting process. That does -- 4 in no way does that reduce the responsibility of the land 5 owner and the developer and the septic installer and the 6 well driller to do exactly what they would have done under 7 the existing rule. Still got to follow the rules. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And we specifically have 9 a provision in our Subdivision Rules which says, 10 specifically, Headwaters and U.G.R.A. -- you know, you're 11 subject to those, or to the O.S.S.F. rules, which are County 12 rules, and subject to Headwaters rules for drilling wells. 13 So, I mean, there's a provision in -- already there saying 14 that, hey, you know, this is just one of the governmental 15 entities you have to deal with. So we still have to deal 16 with, you know, O.S.S.F. program and the -- 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Right. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- Headwaters program. I 19 visited with Cameron a little bit about this; I think he 20 knew that I had something working up in my brain. He didn't 21 know the details ahead of time, and I think Headwaters has 22 some -- I'd actually like to see if either Doug or Cameron 23 have any comments. Cameron's comment to me was they're -- 24 Headwaters has a little bit of a liability question, the way 25 the current certification reads. And also, I think if they 53 1 sign off on some of these, it's kind of a -- when you start 2 signing off on things, you're, I think, implied approving 3 it. And, you know, when they're meeting the minimum 4 guidelines, I'm not sure that they want to -- Cameron? 5 Doug? Do y'all have any comments? Is that why y'all are 6 even here? 7 MR. CORNETT: That's part of it. One of my 8 comments is, how will this affect lots less than 5 acres if 9 they don't have to come through the process? 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: They do. This will -- if 11 it's -- if it doesn't meet our minimum requirements, which 12 is a 5-acre lot size right now, or if it's going to have any 13 kind of a water system, it won't meet the qualification or 14 the -- it will still have to go through the two-time process 15 and come to Headwaters. It's only the ones -- if they're -- 16 and this what it's going to really cause, is Road and Bridge 17 and the Commissioners to look a little bit harder at it to 18 make sure what can come through the quick process in one 19 meeting, and at a much reduced fee structure, or which one 20 has to go under the current system, which will require 21 U.G.R.A. -- or, for example, if it's in a floodplain, it's 22 got to go to U.G.R.A. I don't care if you're -- what you're 23 doing. I mean, if you're doing anything on a plat and it's 24 in the floodplain, I know it goes there. But that's a 25 determination that the surveyor makes originally, anyway, on 54 1 their certification. There's a little box they check, in a 2 floodplain or not in a floodplain, or in the -- in the 3 floodplain, you know, on the insurance maps. Same thing 4 with -- on the water availability. If they're, you know, 5 under some sort of a water system, that kicks it over to 6 Headwaters to sign off under the water availability section. 7 If it's less than -- I believe so, 'cause it's -- they have 8 to either -- if they're under a water system, they have to 9 get certification from T.N.R.C.C., or if it's less -- if 10 it's not a public -- or one governed by T.N.R.C.C., we've 11 granted that authority to Headwaters to have to sign off on 12 the water availability side. So, the only ones that it's 13 going to kick off -- 14 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Roads. You might 15 mention, if there's a road issue, no matter what -- 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It has to come -- 17 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: -- the size is, how 18 big it is, if there's a road issue, you still have to go 19 through the two-time process, a preliminary and a final. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the reason for that 21 is 'cause there are inspections related to the roads. 22 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, before you can 24 build it. So, what it's really intended for are very -- 25 it's -- we used to call them minor replats. It's a little 55 1 bit broader than that. I tried to leave it fairly general, 2 and just said if the number of lots is less than three, it 3 can qualify, and it's up to the Commissioner to say yes or 4 no, it does qualify. That's just the basic intent. My 5 intent is to bring this back first meeting in January for us 6 to adopt it. I don't think that we need a public hearing on 7 this; it's not a major change to our rule. Or maybe we can 8 do it. Fred's nodding yes. 9 JUDGE HENNEKE: Yeah, I think we have to get 10 a ruling on that, because it is a change to the Subdivision 11 Rules. We have to go through a public hearing. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Certainly, I would want 13 to hear from -- comments from U.G.R.A. and Headwaters, 14 'cause they are going to be taken off of some of these, and 15 I'm -- I want to make sure that we're not cutting something 16 out that needs to be in the process, so I don't want to rush 17 into it. That's why I was in favor of giving the variance 18 this morning, because of what Larry said; this isn't going 19 to be changed real quick. It's going to -- we need to go 20 slow. We need to make sure we're doing it properly, need to 21 run it by the County Attorney. I'm pretty certain, by my 22 knowledge of Section 232, that this can -- we can do it this 23 way. We can have different criteria for different types of 24 subdivisions. And the only -- and we're meeting a 25 requirement that it does come to the full court for 56 1 approval. So, I think we're within Section 232. Just 2 trying to come up with the process that really helps the 3 real small developers. And most of them aren't really 4 developers; they're home owners that are trying to make a 5 correction, and I think we should encourage that process and 6 not make it more difficult. So, it will be back in January, 7 and then we -- at that time, we can set the public hearing 8 if we need to. 9 JUDGE HENNEKE: Any other questions or 10 comments? 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: My question, 12 Commissioner Letz, is Cameron through commenting? 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't know. 14 MR. CORNETT: I just wanted to go ahead and 15 reserve the right to review it. Headwaters applauds your 16 intent, because we hear many of the same complaints. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thanks. 18 JUDGE HENNEKE: I think it's a worthwhile 19 exercise; it really is, as we go through this, because we 20 don't want to burden the Alan Browns and the small people 21 with everything. If there's a streamlined process, then 22 we'll offer it to the citizens. I think it's a good idea. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The man -- the 24 gentleman came in about four to six weeks ago and wanted to 25 know why we had to go through the cumbersome, costly 57 1 process. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: To do a minor change. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I notice Stuart Barron 5 from U.G.R.A. just walked in. We're on the topic right now, 6 Stuart, on the Subdivision Rule modification, and also the 7 certification change. We're going to postpone it until 8 January 14th. Isn't that the date? January 14th, we're 9 going to look at it again. Everyone's going to kind of 10 think about it. I think I provided everyone with some 11 language that U.G.R.A. would like to have on their 12 certification. I haven't really spent a lot of time talking 13 to Stuart about that, but we'll come on the 14th -- or 14 between now and the 14th, I'll get with Stuart and 15 Headwaters and we'll make sure that the certification that 16 stays on the -- where it is still required, that we're 17 both -- you know, everyone's happy with that certification 18 language. And then we'll also have a recommendation as to 19 if we can eliminate their even having to look at some of the 20 plats. 21 JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay, very good. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Someday I'll be done with 23 the Subdivision Rules. 24 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: No, you won't. 25 JUDGE HENNEKE: We'll go back to the regular 58 1 order now. Item Number 5 is an invitation to the County 2 Judge and Commissioners regarding the Regional Judges and 3 Commissioners Court Conference be to be hosted here in Kerr 4 County on January 23rd, 2002. Ms. Chapman? Morning, Amy. 5 MS. CHAPMAN: Good morning. How are you 6 guys? I just wanted to personally invite you all to the 7 Southwest Texas Judges and Commissioners Conference that 8 will be held here in town on January 23rd. It will be in 9 the U.G.R.A. building just down the street, and it looks 10 like a pretty neat agenda, because it's -- it deals a lot 11 with regional issues, and also because a lot of things are 12 here in Kerr County. We get to highlight a lot of things 13 out of our county in this agenda, which is pretty neat. And 14 the cost for the conference is $30, which I know when I -- 15 personally, my registration CEU's for Registered Dietitian, 16 30 bucks for 6 CEU's is quite a deal, and that's what this 17 is. And, you know, the other benefit is you don't have to 18 travel far and pay $160 a night at a hotel somewhere. You 19 can stay right here, and then our neighbors can just drive 20 in and things like that. So, if I could, I'd just like to 21 go ahead and pass these out to you all. And -- 22 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: This was the one that 23 you worked? 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. 25 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That was going to be 59 1 on the 24th, and now it's -- I think the 24th was the first 2 day I had -- 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's right, yeah. 4 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: -- on the calendar. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We had to bump it a 6 day. 7 MS. CHAPMAN: Buster's been very helpful on 8 securing a lot of the speakers. 9 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I want to applaud 10 Commissioner Baldwin for doing this and for getting us our 11 six hours or whatever we get, I think, too. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The Southwest 13 conference. See, it's a blend between south and west; this 14 is wonderful. 15 MS. CHAPMAN: And a steak lunch. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Nice ring to it. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And for your 30 bucks, 18 you not only get all those hours and some good fellowship; 19 you get a meal. 20 MS. CHAPMAN: That's right. That's right. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Meal's included. 22 MS. CHAPMAN: That's right. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Heck of a deal. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: See, I'm even on the 25 agenda; didn't even know it. 60 1 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Didn't even know it. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: By the way, thank you, 3 Commissioner Letz. 4 (Laughter.) 5 MS. CHAPMAN: Well, thank you all, and if you 6 have any questions, don't hesitate to call the Extension 7 office. 8 JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you, Amy. 9 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Thank you. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thanks, Amy. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Amy. 12 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Great idea. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Good. 14 JUDGE HENNEKE: The next item for 15 consideration is to consider and discuss possible 16 collaboration between Kerr County and owners of proposed 17 hotel/conference center to be located on property owned by 18 the Texas Lion's Camp. Commissioner Baldwin. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. Mr. Romano? 20 This is Mr. Romano. And you're Mr. Mabry? 21 MR. MABRY: My name's Stephen Mabry, that's 22 correct. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Welcome to Kerr 24 County. 25 MR. MABRY: Thank you very much. Good to be 61 1 here. I appreciate the audience this morning. I'm the 2 Executive Director of the Texas Lions League for Crippled 3 Children, Incorporated, and as y'all may know, we're located 4 out there on Highway 27. The organization's mission is to 5 provide camping experiences to children with physical 6 handicaps and diabetes, and we've been doing that for 7 50-plus years now. Our organization is currently in a 8 strategic planning mode, and we're beginning to evaluate 9 options for our future, particularly over the next ten 10 years, and that's led us to several different avenues. And 11 so, at this time, if it please the Court, I'm going to 12 invite David Romano, who represents PKF and represents the 13 Texas Lions Camp, to present some proposals for you. So, 14 thank you for your audience, gentlemen. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you. 16 MR. ROMANO: Morning, gentlemen. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Morning. 18 MR. ROMANO: Please excuse my hoarse voice; I 19 have a little bit of a cold. As Stephen had stated, we were 20 engaged by Lions Camp to look at the highest and best use 21 for their facility. They were entrusted by one of the Lions 22 members that had given them a large donation, and part of 23 that donation were stipulations that it had to be used for 24 the betterment of the camp. It had to be a building that 25 was constructed that had to generate some revenue, because 62 1 what's happening is the donations from -- the fees from 2 Lions-generated services is starting to dwindle in the last 3 few years, and 10-year projections out will show that it's 4 going to be difficult to fund this camp, so they need to 5 invest this money into some project that is going to make 6 financial sense for the future of the camp. So, we have 7 come into Kerrville and Kerr County looking at what would be 8 the highest and best use for the funding, and in our 9 studies, we had come across a hotel project. And we do a 10 lot of hotel projects across the country; usually, most of 11 the major hotel deals, we have a hand in it. 12 And, in looking at this property, we came 13 across the Hill Country Youth Exhibit Center Site Plan 14 proposal, and in doing that -- I guess the easiest way to 15 explain things is to kind of look at what the project would 16 be for this. They're looking at developing a 60-unit 17 project, Holiday Inn Express-type quality, Hampton Inn-type 18 Express -- or Hampton Inn-type quality, with a significant 19 amount of meeting space that would target not only members 20 of the Kerrville community for lodging, but it would target 21 affinity groups, as in the American Cancer Society, other 22 groups that would use the facility for what is deemed uses 23 of the camp, in terms of ropes courses for the handicapped 24 children and so forth. The Kerrville market, over the last 25 five years, has exhibited very, very slow growth in 63 1 occupancies. We've got it at about a 50 to 51 percent 2 occupancy right now for most of the hotel properties in 3 Kerrville, which is not stellar by any means in any city. 4 We have done some preliminary studies and 5 looking at other camps in the state of Texas; Camp for All, 6 which is in Argyle, Texas, and also -- I'm sorry, Camp John 7 Marc, which is in Argyle, and Camp for All, which is located 8 83 miles south of Austin, and it's actually 82 miles from 9 Houston, that do projects of this scope that are very, very 10 successful. So, in doing that preliminary analysis, we have 11 projected that this hotel property here in the Kerrville 12 market would do approximately 20 percent better than any 13 property -- hotel property that is here. And it would do 14 the average daily rates that are with the market, if not 15 more than the highest rated property on the market, and the 16 average rate, which would be the Y.O. Ranch. 17 So, what we decided might be a good idea, in 18 speaking with a few of you gentlemen on the phone, is that I 19 know that there is a proposal to do some site improvements 20 to the Hill Country Youth Exhibit Center, and I know there 21 is a -- on that plan, a large amount of un -- what we would 22 consider undedicated meeting space, which would be meeting 23 space that's not going to be reserved for horse stalls and 24 so on and so forth on that project. And when you look at 25 projects like this, you would be hard-pressed to find 64 1 probably five different projects across the country that are 2 true convention centers that turn a profit or make money for 3 any of the cities. So, what a lot of cities are doing now, 4 a lot of counties, they're partners with private developers, 5 and what they will do is -- is sometimes the cities will -- 6 will donate that meeting space to the developer. They'll 7 either put it on their land or let the developer put their 8 hotel property on that land, will split some form of the -- 9 either 50 percent of meeting revenues or some part of the 10 food and beverage revenues, and this private developer will 11 assume responsibilities for running it, they'll staff it, 12 they'll market it, manage it, they'll do everything. 13 Or sometimes they do exclusive agreements 14 where the City builds it, they own it, but that development 15 company -- the hotel company will have the right to use -- 16 they have exclusive rights to use the facilities and 17 anything that is within a two-year scope. They can book it, 18 they can reserve it, and they can use it, anything two years 19 out. The CVB takes care of it, books it, uses it, reserves 20 it. There's some form of revenue-sharing agreement with 21 that. Or sometimes they just assign management contracts 22 with these private developers. They will go in, manage the 23 facility, staff the facility, and the City itself will pay 24 that, or the County themselves will pay that private 25 developer to manage the facility. 65 1 I don't know what would suit the needs of 2 Kerr County. I don't know if -- if you gentlemen would be 3 interested in exploring it further, but we thought that it 4 would be prudent to first approach the County and say, 5 "We're in town. This is what we plan on doing," because we 6 think it's only prudent to do that. And, secondly, to open 7 up discussions further down the line, that if there's any 8 options available, that we're more than willing to discuss 9 that with the County. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What -- I mean, the 11 intent -- well, I guess right now the property close to 12 Highway 27 is probably where the hotel would go? 13 MR. ROMANO: Correct, on the outside of the 14 gate, so it's not going to be directly on the Lions -- it's 15 on the Lions Camp land, but it would not be part of the camp 16 itself. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, okay. And then -- 18 I mean, does the -- in projects generally, does the -- I 19 mean, could it be worked out where the meeting space is 20 across the street, basically at the Youth Exhibition Center, 21 and the hotel is on the other side of the street? Or, from 22 y'all's standpoint, do they need to be next to each other? 23 MR. ROMANO: Well, it can be done several 24 different ways. If it's a right to exclusive use, it could 25 be called the Kerrville Texas Lion's Camp Hotel and 66 1 Conference Center, and the conference center could be 2 located across the street. There's many cities that do 3 that. Oklahoma City is a prime example. They have about a 4 million square feet of meeting space. It's a very large 5 facility, and the Renaissance Hotel is directly across the 6 street, connected by a skywalk, which you're obviously not 7 going to put a skywalk in, but they control that space, but 8 the City owns it. So, there's a lot of deals that do that. 9 I mean, it would be nice to have a contiguous property that 10 they're attached, but is that necessary? Not -- not 11 particularly. I mean, they're a stone's throw away. All 12 you need to do is shuttle people back and forth. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And in the -- I mean, one 14 of the, I guess, options is that, with y'all's funding or 15 Lion's Camp funding, that you may be able to help the 16 construction costs of the facility? I mean, if we could 17 jointly agree on a facility, is that part of it, or is it 18 more a -- generally that you would like the County to build 19 it and you will use it? 20 MR. ROMANO: Well, I would assume that the 21 County would like us to build it and share revenues, and I 22 would assume that Mr. Mabry and the members would like the 23 County to build it and they use it for free. So -- 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We've heard that 25 before. 67 1 MR. ROMANO: I think any discussions would be 2 open, but it's done in so many different ways and there's so 3 many different negotiation pieces, that what it would pan 4 out to at the end I couldn't tell you at this point. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But everything's on the 6 table? 7 MR. ROMANO: Absolutely. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 9 MR. ROMANO: But I'm sure everybody wants it 10 for free. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Couple questions come 12 to mind. You talk about the hotel being on the Texas Lions 13 Camp property. 14 MR. ROMANO: Yes, sir. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I assume that that 16 would be a long-term ground lease between your 17 organization -- some organization and the Texas Lions Camp. 18 Would that be correct, Steve or somebody? 19 MR. MABRY: Well, it ultimately depends on 20 what we negotiate. Just assuming that we're on our own, it 21 would be owned by the Texas Lions Camp, which is a 22 charitable organization. But -- and it would be housed on 23 that property there on Highway 27. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And you talked about 25 an exclusive agreement in terms of the use of the exhibit 68 1 space or convention space. 2 MR. ROMANO: Correct. I'll tell you why. 3 And usually, when you allow an exclusive agreement with 4 facilities, it's because it's to the better -- it's to the 5 betterment of your facility, and there would be no reason to 6 do that unless we were to prove that. And, in saying that 7 we -- we think that this property could bring in a 8 20 percent improved performance over other hotels, that's 9 why. And the reason that we had figured that is, I had 10 visited these other camps -- and, quite frankly, I'd like to 11 speak openly. When Stephen had engaged us, we had come to 12 Kerrville, and like I said, we do every major hotel deal 13 across the country, and we thought in the beginning, let's 14 just tell Stephen and the Lions Camp this isn't going to 15 work, and let's save everybody's time and money, because it 16 doesn't make a lot of sense when you look at the Kerrville 17 market. It's a 50 percent market; very, very slow. There's 18 no growth. Let's just not even do it. So I said, let's 19 give it the benefit of the doubt. 20 JUDGE HENNEKE: I really question your 21 statement about no growth, since we've had about three new 22 hotels built here in the last two or three years. 23 MR. ROMANO: Well, what it shows is there's 24 been a 6 percent growth in our competitive set, which is 25 Motel 6 and the Hampton Inn, so on, so forth, those type 69 1 facilities with that growth. There's been 6 percent growth 2 in demand, so when you take the supply and demand, you even 3 it out, the occupancy growth is -- it goes from 50.5 percent 4 up to maybe 50 -- 51.2 percent. So, I could restate it a 5 different way, that the occupancy has remained pretty flat. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The percentage has stayed 7 flat? 8 MR. ROMANO: Correct, I'm sorry. But there 9 has been growth in demand with the supply, but the occupancy 10 has remained pretty consistent. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There are times of 12 the year when the occupancy is zero. 13 MR. ROMANO: Absolutely. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: A hundred percent -- 15 not zero, 100 percent. And part of the reason why exhibit 16 space, whether it's our facility or somewhere else, is good 17 is because it helps level that playing field in terms of 18 occupancy. It spreads it over months where occupancy is 19 low. 20 MR. ROMANO: Absolutely. 21 MR. MABRY: We hope to take that to the next 22 level by what we're planning on doing. 23 MR. ROMANO: There -- there was a facility 24 that is outside the one that's in between Austin and Houston 25 that is -- they facilitate affinity groups that come in, and 70 1 they utilize what would be considered bungalow-type condos, 2 which could facilitate 50 guests, that they book this thing 3 with 15 different events a month, yearlong, and there's a 4 wait list to get people in there, and they are willing to 5 drive 80 miles from either town to get there and do it. And 6 when I had spoken to the camp director there, she said, "I 7 am begging you that that facility does get pitched, because 8 we can just send all the people that are on our wait list 9 down to Kerrville, and they can use this facility. And I've 10 contacted many facilities in San Antonio, all these 11 hospitals and the American Cancer Society. They said, "If 12 you build it, we will come." 13 And I'm telling you, in the beginning -- and 14 I'm being honest as I can be -- I didn't think that this 15 would ever make sense, but after talking to these people and 16 after finding out what these camps do, it does. And what 17 this camp can do in Kerrville is bring in what we would call 18 induced demand, which is demand that has never come here 19 before, and they can use ropes courses, equestrian centers. 20 They can use the pool facilities, they can use, you know, 21 the fishing facilities. I mean, there's a lot that this 22 camp can offer that no one in Kerrville can. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: A 60-room facility 24 would be similar in nature to maybe the new Hampton Inn out 25 here? 71 1 MR. ROMANO: Exactly. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That would be about 3 60 rooms. 4 MR. ROMANO: That quality, yes. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess the question is, 6 where do we go from here? 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'd like to talk more 8 about it. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, but how does the 10 Court want to -- how do you -- what do y'all want to do? 11 And y'all's timeline is probably, I guess, the -- 12 MR. MABRY: Want me to address this, David? 13 MR. ROMANO: Yeah, that's fine. 14 MR. MABRY: One of the things we hoped to do 15 this morning was, first of all, just to tell you of our 16 plans and to start some dialogue. Our next board meeting 17 will be at the first weekend in February, and this plan will 18 be disclosed to the full board at that time. It would help 19 us to be able to report to the board whether or not there's 20 any interest in continuing dialogue with the County, and so 21 perhaps this morning y'all would like to consider now if 22 this is an idea that you would like to discuss further, and 23 give us some kind of indication of what your interest might 24 be so that we can, you know, move into the next part of the 25 process, if possible. 72 1 JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, I think it's easy to 2 say that there's interest, but until we have more specifics, 3 it's hard to say how much interest. We're engaged in 4 discussions now, finalizing the plan, which will require 5 some significant outlays, and then I think the Court is of 6 the mind that if we decide to go forward with this 7 substantial renovation, it will have to be approved by the 8 voters in a bond issue, and the first opportunity for a bond 9 issue really is the first weekend in May. Now, if we can 10 get with you all and make you all a part of that mix, in the 11 sense that we can say, "Here's additional support, financial 12 or whatever else," then that becomes a part of the process 13 of -- of going forward with the -- with the project. So, I 14 think it's timely for us to sit down, after the first of the 15 year, and have some -- have some detailed discussions as to 16 what you all are willing -- what you all bring to the table 17 as far as how we can collaborate and bring about the two 18 projects for everybody's good. 19 MR. ROMANO: Sure. My question to you is, 20 how detailed would you like this information? I can provide 21 what our projections are for occupancy rates and so on, so 22 forth for the years -- 23 JUDGE HENNEKE: That's really not what we're 24 interested in. We're interested in how does your hotel mesh 25 with our -- 73 1 MR. ROMANO: Sure. 2 JUDGE HENNEKE: -- proposed renovations to 3 the Exhibition Center. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Or their need for 5 exhibit space or convention space and that type of thing. 6 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And what kind of 7 arrangements could be made. There are many. 8 MR. ROMANO: Absolutely. 9 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: But what are the ones 10 that sort of make sense, that -- 11 MR. ROMANO: Okay. 12 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: -- you could outline 13 for us that could do this. 14 JUDGE HENNEKE: If you're willing to take the 15 dollars you would have spent on convention/exhibit space at 16 your hotel site and perhaps contribute them to the County's 17 project down the road, what kind of a tie would you require 18 in order to -- 19 MR. ROMANO: Absolutely. 20 JUDGE HENNEKE: -- to make the contribution? 21 MR. ROMANO: Okay. 22 JUDGE HENNEKE: Do you want an exclusive 23 management agreement? Do you want -- do you want to lease 24 it on a -- on a fee basis? You know, or a -- do you want 25 exclusive right to food and beverage? Those are the kinds 74 1 of details that I think are useful for us to know, and for 2 us to work out an agreement in principle with you all, that 3 if we go forward with the project here, what your 4 contribution would be, and here's what the arrangements 5 would be with regard to that contribution. 'Cause I, quite 6 frankly, see that, just diddling here in front of everyone, 7 as the most logical avenue for to us proceed down this way. 8 MR. ROMANO: Absolutely, sure. Sure, be more 9 than glad to. 10 JUDGE HENNEKE: So -- 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have one other 12 question. Have you discussed -- either you or -- David or 13 Stephen, have you discussed this with the Convention and 14 Visitors Bureau, Sudie Burditt? 15 MR. ROMANO: I've been in contact with Sudie 16 to get a lot of my information over the last couple months, 17 and I spoke to her briefly yesterday and I asked her a 18 couple of the different scenarios. I said, what would you 19 say to -- if the County decided to build a meeting space on 20 Lion's Camp property and you were able to sell it as a whole 21 package with the use of the Lion's Camp facility? She said 22 there's no doubt I'd be able to sell that better than any 23 project in the city. I think she understands the 24 ramifications of it, and she is certainly on a positive note 25 of trying to get this meeting space built in this market, 75 1 'cause she does realize that to grow this market, that this 2 would be something that would really help. And I agree with 3 her. I definitely agree with her. 4 JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, my suggestion to the 5 Court and to you is that you get in touch with me right 6 after the first of the year and we'll set up a meeting, one 7 of the -- at least have one other member of the Court 8 participate. I'd prefer not to have to schedule meetings 9 until we get further down the road. Then we can provide 10 information. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Commissioner Baldwin 12 hasn't been doing much. I recommend Commissioner Baldwin. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It needs to be one of 14 the guys that's been dealing with the facility out there all 15 along. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we need to get 17 new people involved. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Commissioner Letz, 19 what if I'm a drinking man? You're riling me up. 20 (Laughter.) 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I tell you the point 22 I'd like to make, is that I think one of the first things 23 that we also need to look at is the legal standpoint. What 24 can we do and what we can't do. And this is the third issue 25 today that we should have had an attorney in -- in this 76 1 room, and we -- I don't know what the problem is with our 2 County Attorney, but I'm going to tell you, this is not 3 right. We're trying to conduct the people's business here, 4 and we need some help on occasions. And, if he's busy -- 5 I'm sorry. I'm taking up your time. 6 MR. ROMANO: That's okay. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: If he's busy down in 8 the County Court at Law, County Court at Law needs to recess 9 for a while. I'm to that point. And I mean that. If he's 10 off at the golf course, we need to close the damn golf 11 course down. We need some legal representation in this 12 room. We've authorized it. We paid for it, and the public 13 demands it, and so do I. 14 JUDGE HENNEKE: We would have to get very 15 good legal advice, because if we go to a bond issue, there's 16 all sort of tie-ins to that. But I'm sure that you all have 17 -- y'all probably have more experience in the tie between 18 the Lion's Camp, as a nonprofit, and a municipality or a 19 county than we do. So -- so, we can tap into that and then 20 have it verified and -- and signed off on by our own side. 21 MR. ROMANO: Sure. The only other question I 22 have for you is, are we going to be able to receive access 23 to more in-depth master plans or site plans on the property, 24 and if you have any estimated project costs? 'Cause I 25 understand -- 77 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: You can have everything 2 we have. 3 JUDGE HENNEKE: You'll get everything we 4 have. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think you have. 6 MR. ROMANO: I have your Master Plan and I 7 understand the layout of it. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's revised. I have 9 a copy I'll give you. 10 MR. ROMANO: Okay. If you'll give me the 11 proposed costs, and I don't know if there were any studies 12 done by the County or the City in what they thought the 13 demand would be for this facility. That would be great to 14 be able to get ahold of that also. 15 JUDGE HENNEKE: There was a study done with 16 the -- the elaborate Master Plan. Since we're in the 17 process of scaling it back, we have not redone the study on 18 the scaled-back version, but I think it's probably still 19 generically applicable. 20 MR. ROMANO: Sure. If I could get copies of 21 that, that would be great. I'm also going to leave myself 22 open to any phone calls. I think everyone has a copy of my 23 business card. Anything -- or any dialogue you'd like to 24 have in between any of our meetings, we're more than open 25 for anything, and we can provide you with any kind of data 78 1 that you'd like also. 2 JUDGE HENNEKE: If you'll contact me again 3 right after the first of the year -- 4 MR. ROMANO: Sure. 5 JUDGE HENNEKE: -- we'll set up times, and we 6 can get together and see how we can all help each other. 7 MR. ROMANO: When would I expect to get the 8 data that you have on the -- 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll put it together, 10 give to it Stephen. He can see that you get it. 11 MR. ROMANO: Great, okay. Thank you very 12 much for your time. I appreciate it. Y'all have a good 13 holiday. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you, David. 15 Thank you, Stephen. 16 MR. MABRY: Thank y'all. 17 JUDGE HENNEKE: Let's push on, if we can. We 18 have our luncheon at 11 o'clock. 19 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The insurance guy just 20 stepped out. 21 JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, we'll just do you, 22 then. 23 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Okay, fine. 24 JUDGE HENNEKE: No, we'll do Jannett. She's 25 ahead of you. Let's do Item Number 8, consider and discuss 79 1 budget amendments for the purchase of unforeseen election 2 supplies due to redistricting. 3 MS. PIEPER: Yes, gentlemen. This entails 4 more ballot boxes and more supply boxes, that I know of for 5 now. I can't really think of any more things that I'm going 6 to have to have for the upcoming elections, but this is 7 going to cost somewhere in the neighborhood of $3,000 to 8 $3,500. And, considering that it was not put in my budget, 9 I'm coming to you to ask how are we going to fund this. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: How are we going to 11 fund this? 12 MS. PIEPER: Yes. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is that the question 14 you wanted? 15 MS. PIEPER: Yes, sir. I mean, I need a 16 budget increase, or possibly taking it out of the 17 Redistricting line item, or -- 18 JUDGE HENNEKE: My suggestion would be to 19 take part out of the Redistricting, since it looks like 20 we're not going to need that, and the rest out of 21 Contingency. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I would agree. My 23 only -- I guess probably -- probably a stupid question. 24 Does all of the new precincts, all that -- when do they 25 become effective? Is that, like, with our -- the primary, 80 1 do we go fund the new system? 2 MS. PIEPER: Yes. My deadline for the 3 submission on this is December the 27th. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. So, everything -- 5 we're under our new system starting the first of the year, 6 essentially? 7 MS. PIEPER: Yes. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Under new precincts, all 9 that, all the new districts. Do you have money in here 10 for -- or a little bit of extra money for education? Are we 11 just going to rely on the press to get this out? It's a 12 pretty big change to a lot of the public. 13 MS. PIEPER: Well, the Republican and 14 Democratic parties are required to publish one notice. 15 JUDGE HENNEKE: But I think we have to -- I'm 16 going to piggyback on what Jonathan's question is. I think 17 we need to include some money somewhere to get some good new 18 precinct maps done. 19 MS. PIEPER: I have also talked with Shaun, 20 our computer gentleman, and he is going to scan the -- our 21 precinct maps in the computer, so hopefully we can get that 22 web site out, and that will help people to identify what 23 precinct they live in and where to vote at. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that -- I mean, 25 that needs to be set -- I know Shaun has a lot to do. That 81 1 is a priority. I mean -- 2 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That's already being 3 worked. 4 MS. PIEPER: Right. He's going to start 5 that -- 6 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Going to be several -- 7 on the web site, there will be several sites or several 8 pages that will show the total -- the total picture, and 9 then you'll be able to zoom on some of that and get it down 10 to more detail, and then there will be some individual scans 11 that -- that -- 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is there -- 13 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: -- showing precise 14 boundaries. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is there an ability to -- 16 or a legal way to put in everyone who's a registered voter, 17 their election number, and then we could put a little voting 18 location for it to make it as simple as possible? 19 JUDGE HENNEKE: On the card? 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, not on the card, in 21 the computer. If Shaun can -- if Paula could come up -- 22 Paula would have to do it, I guess, come up with, "Here's 23 your voting number," and it should be keyed into their 24 computer as to what precinct that equates to. That's on 25 your voting cards. If you could then say, "Here's the 82 1 voting location," and assuming it would be -- 2 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That will all be -- 3 JUDGE HENNEKE: I think you could do it by 4 number, but I think you could certainly devise a key by 5 voting precincts. "If you're in voting Precinct 312, you 6 vote at ..." 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, that's true. 8 MS. PIEPER: And that will be on the web 9 site. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Preliminary to that, 11 there are -- there are a good number of folks who are being 12 taken out of the existing precinct and incorporated into 13 another precinct. 14 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And they'll get -- 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: They need to know 16 that their number has changed and where their proper voting 17 location is going to be. 18 MS. PIEPER: They will have -- once the Voter 19 Registrar's office gets through reprecincting everybody, new 20 voter registration cards will be going out, which will be 21 very shortly, and then that is going to have not only their 22 -- it will have their -- their voting district, their school 23 district -- there's, like, eight different district places 24 on their voter card this year that they will be -- 25 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: They've added. 83 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's all well and 2 good, and that is the base information upon which you advise 3 the public of what's going to happen, but I think we need to 4 advise the public exactly what's going to happen. And I 5 look at -- at a piece of my precinct as a good example. A 6 huge block of people who, at this moment, are 215 are going 7 to become 211. Now, where they vote is going to be the same 8 place, but people don't always look at the card with any -- 9 with any specificity and know exactly what's going to 10 happen. I think it's our obligation to promote that. 11 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And we will get 12 that -- we can do that on the web site without any problem 13 whatsoever. And I think that's a case where you could ask 14 for local media support. Just show a picture of the new 15 voter cards. Say, "Check this number to see which precinct 16 you're in." And here's the list of -- and here's the list 17 of voting precincts and the polling places for each one of 18 those. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we're -- we're 20 wandering a little bit far from the agenda item. My main 21 point is -- was make sure she has enough money to start on 22 this process, and also I think maybe you can get with Paula 23 and come back to the Court with a -- I think we're just real 24 concerned about a plan to make sure the public's aware of it 25 sometime in January, early February -- probably January, 84 1 come back with a plan. If we need additional funds, I think 2 the Court -- I'm willing to spend it, within reason, to make 3 sure we get this change to the public, because this will 4 probably be the -- for the next 10 years, the most -- or one 5 of the most confusing voting periods coming up in March. 6 JUDGE HENNEKE: As far as your specific 7 budget, your agenda item, I think when you have a dollar 8 figure, you need to put -- 9 MS. PIEPER: Yes, sir. I would like to -- to 10 see -- to have a motion that maybe I'm capped at, like, 11 $3,500, and then -- 12 JUDGE HENNEKE: Well -- 13 MS. PIEPER: And my -- my reasoning for that 14 is, eight ballot boxes are going to run somewhere in the 15 neighborhood of $100 each. Then I have to get 24 supply 16 boxes, and that's going to be somewhere in the neighborhood 17 of $100 each. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's $3,200. 19 MS. PIEPER: That's why -- 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Who does the maps? 21 Is it the Judge? 22 MS. PIEPER: I did. 23 (Discussion off the record.) 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't have a problem, 25 you know, with going ahead and approving up to $3,500 to 85 1 come out of -- well, Tommy, how much money do we have left 2 in Redistricting? Do you know, offhand? 3 JUDGE HENNEKE: $500, I think. 4 MR. TOMLINSON: I didn't bring my -- 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I would make a motion to 6 authorize -- 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Who did this? 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- the budget amendment 9 in the amount of $3,500 go into -- where's it go for 10 Jannett? 11 JUDGE HENNEKE: What's your line item, 12 Jannett? Do you know? What line item would it go into? 13 Election Supplies, or -- 14 MS. PIEPER: Let me check and see. It would 15 go into 10-402-330. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The funds to come from 17 any left funds in Redistricting and Commissioners Court 18 Contingency -- or Nondepartmental Contingency. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: In other words, get 20 all of that out of the Redistricting? 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. 22 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Zero it out. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Zero it out, and then 24 the remainder -- 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Out of Contingency. 86 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- out of Contingency. 2 Is that specific enough? 3 MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thank you. 5 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second. 6 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner Letz, 7 second by Commissioner Griffin, that the Court authorize up 8 to $3,500 in expenditures by the County Clerk for additional 9 voting supplies, such funds to come out of the Redistricting 10 line item and Commissioners Court Contingency, and be placed 11 in Line Item 10-402-330. Okay. Any questions or comments? 12 If not, all in favor raise your right hand. 13 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 14 JUDGE HENNEKE: Opposed, same sign. 15 (No response.) 16 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. 17 MS. PIEPER: Thank you. 18 JUDGE HENNEKE: Thanks, Jannett. Let's go 19 back to Item Number 7, consider and discuss law enforcement 20 liability insurance renewal, and renewal of public 21 officials, auto, property, and general liability with TAC. 22 Tommy? 23 MR. TOMLINSON: I'd like to address the auto, 24 public officials, and property first. We -- I have the 25 renewal from Texas Association of Counties. This would be 87 1 our beginning of our third year since -- with -- with them 2 since our last bid. The total premium for -- on the quote 3 for all those coverages together is $109,208. We have -- 4 and our budget for that is $103,973. Now, that's, like, 5 almost a $5,200 difference, but I think I know what the -- 6 what our problem is. TAC told us at the budget -- during 7 the budget time that we needed to add, you know, 10 percent 8 to our property coverage, and -- and I went through the 9 budget. I could see where we did that, but I don't -- 10 there's some places -- I don't think we took into 11 consideration the new purchases for -- for this budget year. 12 Like, there's some -- three vehicles, I believe, at Road and 13 Bridge, and six vehicles in the Sheriff's Department, and 14 then also we -- we did not have coverage on -- on the new 15 addition, or the -- in the annex for one full year last 16 year. So, the -- the addition of new property, plus -- plus 17 the -- plus the 10 percent has caused this $5,200 shortfall. 18 JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. 19 MR. TOMLINSON: The rest -- the other 20 premiums are -- did have an increase, but we anticipated 21 from what TAC told us during budget time, and that's worked 22 out so that we're okay with -- with those premiums. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, we need $5,200? 24 MR. TOMLINSON: Well, we don't need to pay 25 the bill right now. I just -- I just want to bring this to 88 1 the Court to approve the renewal, is what I'm doing. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We need a budget 3 amendment, correct, at some point? 4 MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah, we will, but I'll come 5 up with that when we actually pay the -- actually pay the 6 bill. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 8 MR. TOMLINSON: And this -- this premium does 9 include the liability, and probably covers for the Detention 10 Facility, and so that -- the revenue coming from -- from the 11 Detention Facility to offset this will help with this $5,200 12 also. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. So, you need a 14 motion to authorize -- 15 MR. TOMLINSON: Just the approval to renew. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. 17 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second. 18 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion to renew the -- the 19 public officials, auto, property, and general liability? 20 MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. 21 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner Letz, 22 second by Commissioner Griffin, that the Court renew the 23 public officials, auto, property, and general liability 24 insurance coverage with the Texas Association of Counties. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What about the law 89 1 enforcement? 2 MR. TOMLINSON: I'm ready for that when you 3 vote on this. 4 JUDGE HENNEKE: Any questions or comments on 5 that? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand. 6 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 7 JUDGE HENNEKE: Opposed, same sign. 8 (No response.) 9 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. 10 MR. TOMLINSON: I guess, you know, we all 11 know that there's been somewhat of an upheaval in the 12 insurance industry for two reasons. One is 9/11, and the 13 other is -- is the economy. The interest rates have -- you 14 know, continue to drop and drop and drop, and -- and, you 15 know, insurance companies are crippled with two problems. 16 One is heavy losses, and the other is -- is not being able 17 to earn what they have in the past because of investments. 18 So, there -- there have been major changes in -- in 19 underwriting costs over the last four or five months, and 20 they may continue to do so, you know, within the next couple 21 of years. So, in anticipation of that, I -- I asked Texas 22 Association of Counties to give us a quote on law 23 enforcement. Our law enforcement currently is through the 24 National Sheriff's Association, and it's underwritten by -- 25 by a company called -- by the name of Continental Casualty 90 1 Company. And, with -- with a history of the problems in the 2 -- in the industry, I anticipated quite a change in the 3 premium on this coverage, so that's the reason that we -- 4 we've asked TAC to give us a quote on -- on law enforcement. 5 The result is that I just -- I just received 6 the quote just ten minutes ago from -- from Jack Furman from 7 Continental Casualty. I did find out that, you know, this 8 -- this coverage is what's called an "occurrence" policy, 9 and what that means is that you're covered when the 10 occurrence happens. If there's a claim, there can be a 11 claim against the coverage for -- for the period from 12 January 1 through the end of the year, any time in the 13 future, and as long as you have an occurrence policy, then 14 if it occurred during that year, you're covered; then you 15 have coverage. That's what we have. Texas Association of 16 Counties has a "claims made" policy, and what that means is 17 that -- that the occurrence can happen any time, but if the 18 claim is not made until a year later or two years later, 19 then -- then they pick up the coverage when the claim is 20 made and not when it happens. The -- the problem -- or the 21 down side to changing from an occurrence policy to a claims 22 made is that if you -- if, in the future, if you ever want 23 to change from a claims made back to an occurrence, you have 24 to buy back years prior, and so you could really be hit 25 with -- with, you know, major expense if and when you 91 1 changed. 2 So -- and I also -- he told me just a while 3 ago that -- that he included in this coverage -- well, not 4 included in this coverage is the -- is the Detention 5 Facility. Now, Texas Association of Counties did include 6 them. So, they -- they told me that -- he told me that the 7 only way that this company would write the Detention 8 Facility is for the Sheriff to be the administrator of the 9 Detention Facility. 10 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No way. 11 MR. TOMLINSON: So, we -- I mean, this is a 12 major problem. So -- and I don't have a quote for the 13 Detention Center by itself. Now, he -- Jack says -- Jack 14 Furman tells me he'd get one by sometime next week, and I 15 can tell you what the -- what's been quoted in the Texas -- 16 Texas Association of Counties proposal. It's $49,114. Now, 17 that does -- that does include the coverage for -- for the 18 Detention Facility. Now, the only -- the only -- I'm 19 skeptical somewhat of that premium, and I haven't had a 20 chance to visit with TAC about it, but in the private 21 sector, when you -- the first year you have a claims made 22 policy, sometimes the premium is not 100 percent, because 23 they don't have the risk the first year. So, I want to -- I 24 want to be able to visit with TAC one more time to -- to 25 determine whether or not the premium that they've quoted is 92 1 100 percent. I don't want to go with -- with a $49,000 2 premium and get a 30 percent jump next year. That's what I 3 want to guard against. Now, the premium quote for -- from 4 Continental Casualty is $53,819. 5 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Without Detention 6 Facility? 7 MR. TOMLINSON: Without Detention Facility. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Without Detention? 9 MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: $53,000? 11 MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Tommy? 13 MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah. Let me -- one thing 14 that you have to remember, too -- also that's not included 15 in the $49,000 that I quoted you for -- from TAC is that 16 with -- with this additional coverage, we get an additional 17 2 1/2 to 3 percent discount on our worker's comp, so the net 18 of that is -- is probably an additional, you know, $3,000 or 19 $4,000. 20 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: It sounds like if -- 21 if the $49,000 is 100 percent, that TAC is the better way to 22 go, obviously. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well -- 24 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: It would not be -- 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't know. I don't -- 93 1 that was my question. It comes into the current -- you said 2 under the claims policy, your coverage starts when the claim 3 is filed? 4 MR. TOMLINSON: Right. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What happens in the 6 period -- I mean, I'm trying to figure out when -- between 7 the occurrence and the claim, can there be some liability to 8 the County, or some cost to the County during the period 9 when there's no coverage? 10 MR. TOMLINSON: Well, in the end -- when I 11 switch from occurrence to claims made, there's no gap, 12 because -- because you've been under an occurrence policy, 13 and if something happened two years ago, then the coverage 14 in effect at the time of the occurrence would take care of 15 it, so you don't have to -- you don't have to rely on -- you 16 don't have to rely on your present coverage for that. It's 17 the other direction where you have a problem, is that if you 18 have -- 19 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I'm trying to think -- 20 I've been trying to think, if you switch to the time of 21 claim, why would you ever want to switch back? I mean, I 22 don't -- 23 MR. TOMLINSON: Well, I don't know. I mean, 24 the only reason to switch would be if there was -- 25 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Don't do that. 94 1 MR. TOMLINSON: -- economically, there was 2 some advantage. I mean, if you -- you know, if we go out 3 for bid, for instance, for -- you know, next year, which I 4 think it's due, because we typically have done this every 5 third year. Then -- then, if there was some tremendous 6 economic advantage to change, then we might -- you know, you 7 might change. 8 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Are the limits of 9 coverage the same? 10 MR. TOMLINSON: Yes, the coverage is 11 basically -- is almost identical. So -- 12 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: What would we need to 13 do, then? 14 MR. TOMLINSON: Well, if you want to -- is 15 there any way we can -- the Court can meet next Wednesday or 16 Thursday or Friday? 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes. 18 JUDGE HENNEKE: That's up to you guys. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: If we need to meet, we'll 20 meet. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Wednesday is not 22 good, but Thursday or Friday is okay. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Got prayer meeting on 24 Wednesday? 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, I'm traveling 95 1 back from Christmas on Wednesday. 2 MR. TOMLINSON: And I'm not sure I'll have 3 the answer about the detention -- the cost of the Detention 4 Facility. I don't know. He said he'd try. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I would think Friday, 6 because, I mean, nothing's going to be done between now and 7 Wednesday. We're not going to have any new information by 8 Wednesday, and so you're -- essentially, your request is 9 going to go out Wednesday morning to get any clarification, 10 so I think it's important to meet before Friday. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's a smart son of 12 a gun. 13 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I think we can -- we 14 can meet even the following -- 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Monday. 16 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: -- Monday. We could 17 meet on the 31st if -- 18 MR. TOMLINSON: Well, you could. Could be 19 the 31st if you want to give -- 20 JUDGE HENNEKE: Gives us the maximum amount 21 of time. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: New Year's Eve. 23 MR. TOMLINSON: I apologize for this, but 24 I -- 25 (Discussion off the record.) 96 1 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: If we do it early in 2 the day, you may be -- 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: He's going to provide 4 hats and toot horns. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Sounds like, really, 6 Tommy needs a little more information, so I think we need to 7 meet, 'cause this is too important a policy. We can't 8 let -- we have to make a decision before the end of the 9 year. We just have to meet either Friday or Monday. 10 JUDGE HENNEKE: Monday gives him the most 11 amount of time. Do you want to meet on Monday? 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'd rather meet Monday, 13 personally. 14 JUDGE HENNEKE: Me too. 15 MR. TOMLINSON: That's fine. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 9:00? 17 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: 31st. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 9:00 or 10:00. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'll provide the hats. 20 JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. All right, we'll post 21 a meeting for Monday, the 31st, at -- 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 9:00. 23 JUDGE HENNEKE: -- 9 o'clock. 24 MR. TOMLINSON: I apologize for this, but I 25 just -- you know, I've been after them for months to get 97 1 this. 2 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That will give us an 3 early start. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You know, Tommy, at 5 first glance, looks like maybe TAC might -- I mean, we 6 really need to consider TAC there. 7 MR. TOMLINSON: Well, the only -- the only -- 8 there is one more reason that -- that changing to Texas 9 Association of Counties might be a good move, and that is 10 that if -- if that were to happen, all of our coverage would 11 be with one underwriter. And when -- when you have that 12 situation, and you have -- have the same underwriter writing 13 this coverage for the entire operation of the County, then 14 there's less chance of any -- of any gaps or uncovered items 15 in your total coverage. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's true. 17 MR. TOMLINSON: Because -- I mean, because 18 when you have -- you know, you have public officials' 19 liability and you have general liability and you have law 20 enforcement, and so they're -- if you have the same -- you 21 have the same rider of those coverages, then you -- it's 22 likely that you won't have any gaps. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Tommy, what would the 24 -- an additional discount on workman's comp, what would that 25 net to us? 98 1 MR. TOMLINSON: Well, I don't know exactly 2 what our worker's comp premium is, but in the -- 3 historically, TAC has given us from 2 1/2 to 4 percent 4 discount on our worker's comp for -- for every coverage that 5 we have. In other words, with this, we would get a 20 -- if 6 it were 4 percent, we would have a 20 percent discount on 7 our worker's comp, because we have law -- we have -- we 8 would have four liability policies plus a property, so that 9 would give us five different coverages, which would -- would 10 equate to 20 percent max. It may not be that much; I don't 11 know. I don't know what it is this year. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. Thank you. 13 JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. 14 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The only thing that I 15 would also like to find out when Tommy's checking, if he 16 doesn't mind, in our -- under our current coverage, we 17 haven't had any recent lawsuits filed, any new ones against 18 the Sheriff's Office or law enforcement -- yeah, knock on 19 wood. I haven't had any filed since I took office yet. 20 We've got one claim against insurance for one slipping in 21 the shower, but that was a design deal, and I think that's 22 getting taken care of. But, under the old ones, where we 23 actually had one go all the way to a federal jury trial last 24 month or month before, I know that the law firm that the 25 current insurance company uses did a fantastic job in 99 1 representing this county and -- and the jail in that 2 lawsuit, and ended up getting -- even though it was a jury 3 in place, went all the way through a jury trial, they came 4 back from lunch and the federal judge threw it out, gave an 5 instructed verdict, said there's no way. And that's the 6 quality of the law firm we're getting, and I would just hope 7 that TAC or some of them do have these type quality law 8 firms, you know, that would represent us in that, and that 9 would be my only real concern in changing. 10 JUDGE HENNEKE: Good point. Okay. We'll set 11 a meeting for the 31st. Gentlemen, our Christmas luncheon 12 starts in five minutes. 13 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: We can get 13 out of 14 the way in one minute. 15 JUDGE HENNEKE: Do we want to try to push 16 through, come back at 1:15? 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we ought to come 18 back. 19 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I was just going to 20 say, we could probably do 13 before we -- as we were 21 standing up. That's the date for the -- 22 JUDGE HENNEKE: We'll just come back at 1:15. 23 (Discussion off the record.) 24 (Recess taken from 10:56 a.m. to 1:30 p.m.) 25 - - - - - - - - - - 100 1 JUDGE HENNEKE: It's 1:30 in the afternoon on 2 Friday, February -- December 21st. We'll call to order this 3 meeting of the Kerr County Commissioners Court. The next 4 item for consideration is Item Number 9, consider and 5 discuss salary classification for Jail Administrator. 6 Sheriff Hierholzer. 7 (Discussion off the record.) 8 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Okay. First thing is 9 that it does not -- from what I can tell, what I'm going to 10 ask you to do does not change the bottom line in the budget, 11 doesn't change what we're doing. What it is, our current 12 Jail Administrator is classified as a 21-6, putting her 13 salary at $31,679 a year. In going back -- and some of it I 14 attached in there. What I was talking -- you can see that a 15 lot of the raises that she has gotten over the years she's 16 been there, since '97, were not in line with step and grade. 17 They were just -- that's her salary, okay? And it ended up 18 coming in, when we look at it now, as a 21-6. What I'm 19 asking the Court to do is redo that to where the starting 20 Jail Administrator's salary, as far as going back to where 21 we can get it to a 1, would be a 23-1, which is thirty 22 thousand -- 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 907. 24 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yeah. 25 JUDGE HENNEKE: Sheriff, is that because you 101 1 think that's what the Jail Administrator's salary should be, 2 or that's what you want to give Mr. Newton? 3 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No, that's because 4 that's where I think the Jail Administrator's starting 5 salary in the jail should be. The reason I say that -- and 6 it's really not where I think it should be; I think it 7 should be higher than that. It's dropping it some from what 8 Pam was making, but we have a nurse in that jail that's 9 still making $32,000-something. $31,000 -- or $30,000, if 10 you even look at it, is equivalent to what a starting city 11 patrolman here makes. Okay. And if you look at the job 12 duties of that Jail Administrator, I think that being 13 equivalent and trying to keep it in line with mine and the 14 Chief Deputy's and just going along, it should be classified 15 as a 23-1, to where if we have a change later or whatever, 16 it can go back to that 1 without going all the way back down 17 to $28,000. 'Cause I don't think, currently, if we -- if we 18 followed the County's guidelines and put it back down to a 19 21-1, which is where it would go from Pam's 21-6, it would 20 put the Jail Administrator's salary at $28,000, and I don't 21 think anybody would say that that's appropriate for the Jail 22 Administrator at the jail we're running. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which is it? 21-1, 24 as you have in your memo, or 21-6? 25 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: 21-6 is what Pam is at 102 1 now. If Pam leaves, which she's doing on the 15th of 2 January, with the County's guidelines, whoever starts in 3 that position would go back down to a 1. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay, got you. 5 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's what I'm saying. 6 That would put it at $28,000, which I don't think is 7 appropriate for a Jail Administrator. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And 21-6 and 23-1 is 9 the same amount of money? 10 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No. Actually, a 23-1 is 11 about $1,000 less than the 21-6 that Pam's at now. A 23-1 12 is $30,907, where a 21-6 that Pam is at now is $31,679. And 13 so -- 14 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I move to approve it 15 as submitted. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. 17 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner 18 Griffin, second by Commissioner Baldwin, that the Court 19 approve reclassification -- reclassifying the starting 20 salary for the Jail Administrator at the Kerr County Jail to 21 be a Grade 23, Step 1, currently $30,907 per year. 22 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes. 23 JUDGE HENNEKE: Questions or comments? 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Comment. I guess my 25 problem is, why do -- I mean, I know the situation from the 103 1 change of employees right now makes it a time deal, but why 2 isn't it brought up in budget? I mean, if the position 3 needs to be a 23, this should have been brought up four or 4 five months ago. 5 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That probably is -- I 6 would have to take the blame on that. To be honest, we were 7 looking at a lot of other things in the budget. The 8 Commissioners took care of the salaries with our employees 9 who -- through the Nash study. I was not thinking of -- if 10 we were to lose Pam and what the actual starting salary of 11 that position would go back to, by the County's guidelines, 12 dropping it back down to a 1. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It just seems that every 14 time we come up with this, all we do we bump people up, 15 whether it's your department or Jannett's department -- I 16 mean, we always bump up, bump up, and it's never done in 17 budget cycle when we're supposed to be doing it. If we 18 don't do it in budget cycle, I'm probably less inclined to 19 bump up a lot of these that we bump up. I just have a 20 problem doing these things out of sync, 'cause I think we 21 get in trouble. 22 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And I can try and do 23 that. The thing is, it gets difficult to actually, during 24 the budget cycle, look back and say, well, if I lose this 25 employee -- 'cause you never want to, okay -- what would one 104 1 taking his place end up going back to? And that's just 2 something you have to look at and I have to look at. 3 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I think there's 4 another factor here, too, that affects my thinking on it, 5 and that is that the Jail Administrator's job has changed. 6 We're running that sucker -- how many? What's our average? 7 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Average inmates in the 8 jail right now is in the -- monthly average is 157. 9 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Which is way above 10 anything we've done in the past, and it's a big job. That 11 is a -- the Jail Administrator is a very important function 12 for our law enforcement community. 13 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It is. And you can get 14 into that -- you know, like I had mentioned to you, just 15 during a conversation, talking with TDC officials and the 16 gang officials and everything out of Bexar County, now 17 they're saying, because Bexar County's cracked down on them 18 so bad, that even the higher-ups in your -- in your gangs 19 are telling their members to move out to the rural areas. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I don't disagree 21 with -- 22 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: You know. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- what -- I mean, what 24 we're doing. I disagree with the time that we're doing it. 25 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I disagree with losing 105 1 my Jail Administrator, but I didn't have a choice in the 2 matter. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Rusty? It's none of 4 -- none of our business at all who that person is, and I 5 understand that clearly, but I thought you could tell us a 6 little bit about Mr. Newton. 7 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Okay. Grady Newton -- 8 I'll bring him in to the Commissioners Court. Today -- I'll 9 be honest; I didn't want to bring him today for y'all to get 10 to know him, because I didn't want to -- for it to look like 11 I've got somebody else in here trying to bid for his own 12 salary. Grady is the Assistant Jail Administrator 13 currently. He has been for a number of months, since I 14 hired him. He has 30 -- 32 years law enforcement 15 experience. He was an administrator over a drug officer 16 operation, kind of like a special operation deal with 17 Dallas -- in the Dallas area and that, up in there. He's 18 been an administrator for years and years. He's got a 19 little bit more to learn on the jail side of it, but as far 20 as -- as law enforcement and an officer and that, I don't 21 think I could find any better. 22 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And you said he's got 23 his -- 24 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Master's. A Master 25 Peace Officer. 106 1 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Certificate. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The only other comment 3 that I want to make on this topic is that we're doing this 4 out of cycle, and I suspect we're going to have another one 5 come up pretty soon from the County Attorney's -- we already 6 did one, I think, saying that our salary level in the 7 budget's not what it takes to hire these people, which is 8 essentially what Rusty's telling us right now. 9 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Except my difference is 10 I don't believe it's in there because of that salary level, 11 you know, where -- where it's even -- mine currently is a 12 21-6. I'm still starting the new Jail Administrator at a 13 lower level of almost $1,000 than the current one. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm just saying, though, 15 that the -- 16 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Didn't we approve -- I 17 thought we approved for the County Attorney. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We did. 19 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: A slot. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I thought we did, 21 too. 22 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And an amount. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: He came and asked -- 24 JUDGE HENNEKE: We -- he has a slot and 25 amount. What he -- he has come and -- 107 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: He requested more, and we 2 said no. 3 JUDGE HENNEKE: They requested that -- that 4 the salary level is not sufficient to hire people. My 5 response to him, then, is how have you be been able to hire 6 three people in the last two years at that level, then? 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But, I mean, the same 8 argument, just from a consistency standpoint -- I mean, it's 9 totally different departments and things like that, but it's 10 just -- we get into this trouble, in my opinion, when we do 11 this out of budget cycle. It's a different topic. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree. 13 JUDGE HENNEKE: The Sheriff's request is not 14 a -- is not going to cost us money. He's not coming in and 15 asking for more money for the Jail Administrator. He's 16 actually asking for less money for the current -- than the 17 current Jail Administrator is making. What he's saying is, 18 he's saying that the -- the grade for the position of Jail 19 Administrator is not where it should be. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 21 JUDGE HENNEKE: So, as far as a direct money 22 impact on the budget, it's actually positive from the 23 County's point of view. 24 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Except it won't cost the 25 County money even at the end of this year, okay? But the 108 1 thing where it does is his educational -- his Master's 2 certificate, with the County's educational step deals, okay, 3 does add more to that. 4 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: But that kicks in 5 later. That kicks in the following year. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's -- 7 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No, it kicks in 8 immediately, and so -- that's the policy that the County 9 has. We went through it and I read it. 10 JUDGE HENNEKE: I think it kicked in when he 11 was hired, but you're talking about just a job change, not a 12 hiring. He got credit for his Master's certificate when he 13 was hired or when we put the policy into place, correct? 14 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes. 15 JUDGE HENNEKE: They don't get credit for it 16 again when they change jobs. 17 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Then does he take a pay 18 reduction in the job? 19 JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, I don't know what he's 20 making now. 21 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I mean, that can happen, 22 because if you don't give him credit for those educational 23 raises at the same time he promotes up, you know, those 24 educational raises bump you up above what the starting 25 salary is, then, for that position he's promoting to. 109 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But you don't keep 2 giving the same credits over and over again. 3 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No, he doesn't get more, 4 okay. With his educational incentives, he would -- under 5 the 23, he would go to a 23-5, okay, because of his 6 educational incentives. Now, it bumps it by intermediate, 7 advanced, and master, same thing, which bumps him up. Now, 8 if he had it in his current position, okay, I don't know 9 what his classification is right now, but it may, in 10 equivalence, be more than what that pay raise is going to 11 be, 'cause he's got them now, but he's going to lose them 12 then. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Go ahead; it's your 14 story. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think you carry them 16 with you. You don't get them again, but you -- whatever he 17 is -- whatever his new job is, he still gets those credits 18 added to it. 19 JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. Well, then, that's in 20 essence what the Sheriff's saying, is he won't start at the 21 26-1; he'll start at a 26-5. 22 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Or 23-1. He'll start at 23 the -- 24 JUDGE HENNEKE: Whatever. 25 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: -- the 23-5, because of 110 1 his education. But any jail -- and that's why I wasn't 2 talking about a specific Jail Administrator. Anybody I 3 would put in that position would start at a 23-1, depending 4 on his education. 5 JUDGE HENNEKE: Have you done any survey of 6 Jail Administrators? 7 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The one closest. And 8 the reason I'm saying this is, where Pam's moving to, San 9 Marcos, has a 242-bed jail, okay? Ours is a 192-bed jail. 10 The person that Pam's going over there with is a captain -- 11 what they consider a captain in their jail, 242-bed jail. 12 His salary is $52,000. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: She's going over 14 there as assistant? 15 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No. She -- that's where 16 she's moving to. She's not going in as an employee in the 17 jail. I'm talking about his, okay, as an employee -- as a 18 captain in the jail of Hays County, his salary. 19 JUDGE HENNEKE: But he's the Administrator of 20 the Hays County Jail? 21 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No. He's a captain, not 22 even the Administrator, and his salary is $52,000. 23 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: But he administers the 24 jail? 25 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No, there is a Jail 111 1 Administrator. He's just a captain in that jail. 2 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Oh. 3 JUDGE HENNEKE: See, the problem is you're -- 4 you're asking us to adjust the grade of the Jail 5 Administrator based on the salary for a patrol deputy at 6 K.P.D. 7 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No, I'm just -- I just 8 mentioned that. What I'm saying is, the Jail Administrator 9 in the Kerr County Jail, okay? I don't -- I would hope none 10 of us would think that the Jail Administrator's job in the 11 Kerr County Jail should be $28,000 a year. 12 JUDGE HENNEKE: None of us think that many of 13 our people get paid enough anyway, but -- 14 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No, I know. I mean, it 15 hasn't been that in years. 16 JUDGE HENNEKE: As I recall, the Nash study 17 said that Pam's grade -- the Jail Administrator's grade was 18 competitive with Jail Administrator positions that they 19 studied. 20 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I don't believe it said 21 that. 22 JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, as I remember, we 23 didn't adjust her -- did we adjust her salary as part of the 24 Nash study? I don't remember. 25 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Because y'all had 112 1 already given her one when Charlie Hicks was interim 2 Sheriff. It went in under the budget, of him just asking. 3 It said present salary $25,878, and him asking for $27,172, 4 okay? That was outside any line item or any -- any steps. 5 It's just where they set the salary for the Jail 6 Administrator. 7 JUDGE HENNEKE: But when the Nash study 8 looked at the Jail Administrator's position, did they make 9 any recommendation about adjusting the grade for that 10 position? That's what I'm asking. 11 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I think at that point is 12 where it went to the 26-1, where she's at now. 13 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: 21-6. 14 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: 'Cause that was one year 15 difference in there. 16 JUDGE HENNEKE: 21-6. 17 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I mean 21-6, where she 18 is now, which is the $31,000. 19 JUDGE HENNEKE: It seems like what you're 20 saying, though, is that the Nash study set the 21 as the 21 appropriate grade for the Jail Administrator. 22 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I don't -- I don't 23 believe so, Judge. What I'm saying -- 24 JUDGE HENNEKE: Because it -- 25 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: -- is with her 113 1 percentage change and with what the Nash study, her salary 2 ended up at $31,000 -- or $30,000 last year, before the 3 2 percent raise this year. And I'm saying the equivalent of 4 that would be a 23-1 of a starting Jail Administrator. 5 JUDGE HENNEKE: See, the problem that I'm 6 wrestling with is, two years ago we paid Nash to go and 7 study the grades of all the County employees, and if we're 8 going to adjust the grades of all the County employees, we 9 need to have some basis for that. 10 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: What I saw from the Nash 11 study was the deputies which we had talked about, and was 12 the longevity-type increases. They recommended the 13 educational increases in that. I did not see that they ever 14 adjusted or addressed the Jail Administrator. 15 JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, they looked at every 16 job in the county. 17 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: But I have no record, 18 and none of that that I ever got from Nash study ever set 19 the Jail Administrator's at a step and grade. 20 JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, my dim memory is that 21 they -- this is just going by memory -- is that they thought 22 that the grade was -- was adequate for the Jail 23 Administrator. I don't remember -- now, I'd have to pull it 24 out, and God only knows where it is after this period of 25 time, but again, the issue is on what basis do we adjust the 114 1 grade of any employee? It's not just your Jail 2 Administrator, it's any employee. I mean, what kind of data 3 does the Court want to have before we adjust the grade? You 4 know, if we just talk about the salary for Mr. Benson, 5 that's a different issue. I mean, you're presenting a 6 legitimate issue. I like the way you're doing it; you're 7 doing it right. The problem I have is, what do we hang our 8 hats on making that kind of a change? And I don't know. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: You know, I mean, that's 10 kind of my problem, what the Judge says. It's not more -- I 11 mean, there needs to be justification to change the step and 12 grade. Otherwise, we're going to end up in the same mess we 13 just tried to undo a few years ago. But he wouldn't go in 14 as a 21-1. I mean, a new employee, if he has certifications 15 -- you said he's a 21-6 or a 21-5? 16 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Mm-hmm. But if I have 17 somebody else that I put in as Jail Administrator and not 18 him, that doesn't have those -- I'm trying to leave those 19 educational issues out of where -- where we're trying to get 20 the, you know, Jail Administrator's starting salary for the 21 Sheriff's Office at. Because I think the educational issue 22 should -- in fact, shouldn't factor into making where that 23 starting salary is. That's why I'm saying what would be 24 equivalent is that 23-1. 25 JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, I would suggest 115 1 let's -- let's put this off a meeting, pull out what Nash 2 did, take a look at his comments, if any -- and there may 3 not have been any about the Jail Administrator -- and see 4 what he has to say. I mean, when does Benson take over? 5 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Newton. 6 JUDGE HENNEKE: Newton, I'm sorry. 7 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Be the 16th of January. 8 JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, he'll start under the 9 current guidelines. He'd start at the 21 -- 10 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: One. And then his 11 education. 12 JUDGE HENNEKE: 21-1 plus his education 13 credits, which is what, a four-step bump? 14 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It would be a 21-5. 15 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: What would that number 16 be? I was thinking of another -- 17 JUDGE HENNEKE: Hmm? 18 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: The way I work this -- 19 just for thought, if we're going to pull the -- pull the 20 Nash study, one of the things we may do, based on his 21 qualifications -- we have made -- we can make exceptions at 22 what step level we hire. So, what if we hired him at -- 23 because of his educational credits and the fact that he's 24 well qualified, maybe hire him in at the 21-6 level, where 25 our current administrator -- Jail Administrator was paid at 116 1 that level. We hire him in at 21-6, then we adjust -- we 2 take a look during the budget cycle at reclassifying that 3 position and adjusting his salary, by the way, as a result 4 of that, to a 23-1, and then set him at -- at the 20 -- I 5 guess that would be a 23-5? And look at that as a budget 6 issue rather than -- which sort of -- it's a proper 7 compromise to get him hired at a -- at the same rate that 8 Pam was at, and at the same time, meets the -- the concern 9 about addressing the reclassification as a budget issue. I 10 think he'd come out with the same money, right? Isn't that 11 right? 12 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, the only thing is 13 the philosophy issue on that point, with me, is that Pam has 14 dedicated several years with the County, okay? And it's 15 just one of those -- I don't actually think -- it's true, 16 his education is a lot higher than Pam, which should move 17 him up. You know, 30 years law enforcement. The problem I 18 have with hiring him at a straight 21-6, at exactly where 19 Pam is now, I don't think that's really fair, either, to -- 20 you know, we've had a valued employee for several years, 21 okay, that's done an excellent job, and now we're going to 22 put somebody else in that position and he's going to start, 23 without those educational or whatever, at the same salary 24 she's leaving at. 25 JUDGE HENNEKE: I think -- 117 1 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Do you see what I'm 2 getting at? That's why I dropped it to a 23-1, which would 3 mean he's starting at $1,000 less than what she was at. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, then hire him at 5 21-3. 6 JUDGE HENNEKE: 21-5. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. I mean, it just -- 8 I mean, I like -- I don't have as much of a problem 9 adjusting qualifications of someone's salary, like Larry 10 said, but I do have a problem with going in out of budget 11 and adjusting step and grade. 12 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Okay. Then if I hire 13 him at a 21-5, okay, which is what you asked a while ago, do 14 I then give him, because of this other educational, those 15 steps? 16 JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, that is giving him 17 those other steps. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 21-5 includes the 19 step. 20 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: So, in other words -- 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 21, plus the bump for 22 education. 23 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: So, in other words, it 24 would put the starting Kerr County Jail Administrator's 25 salary, if it wasn't him, if he doesn't last through the 118 1 year or something happens or whatever, back down to $28,000. 2 JUDGE HENNEKE: Unless you came to the Court 3 and got it adjusted, yeah. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The next budget year -- 5 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Just like we'll do it 6 in this case. And what I'm saying is, then we can adjust -- 7 also look, in the budget process, at changing -- changing it 8 to a 23 from a 21, as a budget process. Has nothing to do 9 with the money. The money comes out as a push, and we 10 don't -- we don't end up compromising the system, so to 11 speak. That we adjust -- we do grade adjustments at budget 12 time, but we can hire at different steps to get to the right 13 number for the particular employee. And that's what we're 14 trying to do in this case. 15 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Right. 16 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: As I hear it. 17 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: If I hire him at a 21-5, 18 what that is is that $30,907, same as a 23-1. 19 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Mm-hmm. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, the other thing, 21 I'm just a little bit more -- 22 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: But then my problem I 23 still have, and this is a problem we had talked about last 24 budget year; it just didn't get -- get changed that much. 25 We took care of one, but then the problem I have is, I have 119 1 a nurse, okay, making over $2,000 more in the jail than the 2 Jail Administrator. 3 JUDGE HENNEKE: But, Rusty, we can't adjust 4 people's salaries based on a mistake that was made on the 5 nurse under two Sheriffs ago. I mean -- 6 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: But I have to -- I have 7 to try and get it corrected, because it is -- you know, it 8 is not equal or fair in any way, shape, or form. I think 9 all of us can agree with that. Somehow, I have to get it 10 corrected, okay. I've tried for over a year to try and find 11 a way to do that. 12 JUDGE HENNEKE: But the way to do that, 13 really, is not to bring everybody up past the nurse, quite 14 frankly. It's to find some way to get rid of that nurse. 15 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Which I'm trying to do, 16 but I think the Jail Administrator in that jail, especially 17 what with the duties on that person -- you know, no matter 18 what should be -- and that 23-1, before you give the 19 educational increases, is still not above the nurse. It's 20 trying to get it, you know, up there without trying to take 21 it all in one bite, and that's what I'm trying to do. The 22 nurse is $33,000. The 23-1 is $30,000. And then I give him 23 the educational, which gives him a little bit above the 24 nurse and helps equal out what we're trying to do. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I understand all that, 120 1 but I would rather have you come during the budget for -- we 2 need to do a special time before we -- maybe in May 3 sometime, have -- make sure you look through all your -- the 4 jail or the Sheriff's Department, whatever, and do them all 5 at one time, because the problem comes in if we look at -- 6 in your department probably more than anybody else's, at any 7 position, singled out, they should get more money. I mean, 8 it's that simple, and we can't look at it like that. We 9 have to look at the big picture. To me, I'd rather adjust 10 the salary now and then come back with an actual date. If 11 you want to move things around and get rid of a position, 12 add positions, you know, let's do that at one time for the 13 whole department. 14 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, I was trying to. 15 It's just kind of -- like, the nurse, when we lost the one 16 nurse that was at 22, I took it on -- on my own to drop that 17 from that 29, whatever that was, and to drop that back down 18 to a 24-1 position, okay. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's good. 20 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I didn't have any 21 problem doing that. What I'm trying to do now is not look 22 at who the person is, but I'm trying to still get it equal. 23 My time to get that equal, okay, is -- the best time for me, 24 as an administrator, is when I do lose one and I have to 25 replace that person with someone else. To me -- I know it's 121 1 best if we could always do it at budget time. I have no -- 2 no qualms with you about that, Jon. But my problem is, when 3 I try and get it equaled out to where it's fair for 4 everybody, unfortunately, a lot of times that's when you 5 have that opening is when it's time to get that straight and 6 get it worked out to where I don't have that problem. 7 JUDGE HENNEKE: But that's not a good time 8 for us. 9 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: What if -- 10 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The bottom line is -- I 11 agree it may not be a perfect time for y'all, but the reason 12 I'm coming to it -- to you with it now is that it will not 13 change the bottom line of this year's employee salaries 14 already budgeted for the Sheriff's Office, because I've had 15 several positions since October that have not been filled 16 yet, and that money is in our salary line item. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But it will impact next 18 year's budget. 19 JUDGE HENNEKE: It also won't change the 20 budget if you put him at a 23-5 -- 21-5. 21-5 is the same 21 as the 23-1. 22 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Except what I'm also 23 figuring in there in not changing the -- true, it won't, but 24 I'm also figuring in there the educational, and it still 25 won't change the budget. 122 1 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: How much does 21-7 2 make? What's the -- 3 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: $31,471. 4 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: What if -- question. 5 What if -- what if we hire -- because of his qualifications, 6 we hire Newton at 21-7 for now, period. We address the 7 issue that Rusty's talking about, that the Sheriff's talking 8 about on the reclassification of that grade as a budget 9 item. 10 JUDGE HENNEKE: Why would we put him at a 11 21-7? 12 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: 'Cause that 13 straightens out -- that straightens out the thing with the 14 nurse. It also puts him at about the same level -- 15 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: My only problem -- 16 JUDGE HENNEKE: I'm not willing to play off 17 of the nurse. 18 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Mr. Griffin, my only 19 problem with that -- and I'm kind of against that, because 20 it's going back to what I'm definitely trying to avoid. I 21 don't want to -- to come in here and ask for a certain step 22 and grade, you know, as a salary for somebody just because 23 of the person and because of his education. That's why I'm 24 asking that the starting salary for the Jail Administrator 25 be at that 23-1, and then whatever education that person 123 1 has, okay -- if it's Grady, I put in there -- if I wake up 2 tomorrow morning and decide Grady's not who I want in there 3 or whatever, then the education says where that ends up. 4 But the starting salary is -- is what I -- I don't want to 5 look and don't want to come to y'all with an employee and 6 say, "This is the most perfect person we've ever had. His 7 education is this; I want his salary at this level." I 8 don't want -- I want to avoid that. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sheriff, may I say 10 something? You do not have three votes here at this table. 11 Judge, I'd like to withdraw my second to that motion, 12 please. Let's move on. 13 JUDGE HENNEKE: Your second is withdrawn. 14 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Well, I'll withdraw 15 the motion. If there's a better way to do it -- that's what 16 I was trying to do is get some kind of compromise here so 17 that we can move on. 18 JUDGE HENNEKE: I -- what I'm hearing, 19 Sheriff, is if you think that the position needs to be 20 reclassified, you need to bring it back during the budget 21 discussion. And you -- Mr. Newton sounds like a wonderful 22 candidate, and according to our current guidelines, he would 23 get the job at a 21-5, which is the equivalent of a 23-1. 24 And don't we have something in the guidelines about an 25 employee doesn't get a reduction in salary if they change 124 1 jobs? 2 MS. PIEPER: I don't know for sure. 3 MS. SOVIL: It's just been a practice. 4 JUDGE HENNEKE: No, I think we put something 5 in about that. 6 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I think it's just a 7 practice. 8 JUDGE HENNEKE: What's he make now? What's 9 he make now? I mean, that's the -- 10 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: He won't get a 11 reduction. 12 JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, if you hire him 14 at a 23-1 and give him credit for education, he will be 15 receiving the dollars that you are talking about here in 16 your backup. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I think it's a good 18 time -- 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Doesn't take Court 20 approval to do that. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And at budget, we'll look 22 at that classification. If we need to change it, we'll 23 change it. 24 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Sounds like he may 25 very well need to be changed. 125 1 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Right now, it works for 2 this one employee because of his education. Okay? 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right. 4 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And that's the whole 5 thing I was trying to avoid, to be honest. I didn't want it 6 to work for an employee because of their education. I 7 wanted it at a level. 8 JUDGE HENNEKE: And we appreciate the 9 honesty, the way you present it, but we're reluctant to 10 address classification issues other than as part of the 11 budget cycle, 'cause we really need to look at them all, not 12 piecemeal. You know, if we're going to open up 13 reclassifications, then we're going to have to devise, as a 14 court, a mechanism for what has to be presented in order to 15 justify that reclassification. 16 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And we've reclassified 17 several in the last budget. 18 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes. 19 JUDGE HENNEKE: But we went through the -- 20 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Went through a process 21 to do that. 22 JUDGE HENNEKE: We went through Nash to do 23 that. 24 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yeah. 25 JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. 126 1 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's -- 2 JUDGE HENNEKE: Let's move on to the next 3 one. 4 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I'll withdraw my 5 motion. 6 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Let's see if this one 7 will go. 8 JUDGE HENNEKE: The next one is Number 10, 9 consider and discuss creating one additional sergeant's 10 position in the jail, eliminating corporal ranking of two 11 positions, and reclassifying them as jailer positions. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, absolutely not. 13 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Wait. 14 (Discussion off the record.) 15 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: This one's a little bit 16 different. Under the -- the structure and kind of the 17 hierarchy, or however you say it, which the Sheriff's Office 18 has had for years, we've always had the sergeants and then 19 corporals in the jail, okay? Corporals, to me, in the jail, 20 and by their job duties in the jail, do the exact same thing 21 that a regular corrections officer does, okay? The prior 22 administration had corporals making a little bit more, 23 because the prior administration felt that corporals should 24 be in charge of doing the booking part, and it kind of 25 selected them out that they're booking officers. Well, a 127 1 booking officer is a booking officer. A jailer -- 2 corrections officer is a corrections officer. They still 3 have to do each other's duties. There's not one that just 4 does that. So, I personally am gradually doing away with 5 the corporal position in the jail. I don't think we need 6 them. I don't think it's fair to all the employees, because 7 you have four corporals that do the same thing as the four 8 officers, but yet they're getting paid more because they 9 have this rank. 10 We have done away with, over the -- the last 11 year, two of those positions, and so I don't have -- only 12 currently have two corporals -- considered corporals on the 13 payroll. So, I've had two corporal openings ever since this 14 budget year took into effect. What I am trying to do is 15 turn one person into a training officer that can train on 16 our computer system, that I can send to training on the 17 computer system, that can work all the different hours that 18 they need to work, and fill in as a supervisor at the same 19 time while they're doing training if a supervisor is on 20 vacation or whatever; that we use this person in that, and 21 that person has the rank and the authority to actually train 22 the jailers and get them done. So, the salary difference 23 between the corporal positions I'm doing away with, and the 24 supervisor position is what I'm asking to turn those 25 nonexistent corporal positions anymore into a supervisor 128 1 position. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Anybody occupying a 3 corporal's position now? 4 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I have two corporals 5 now. I have two open corporal positions that I am not 6 filling with corporals; they're coming in as jailers. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is it fair to assume 8 that one of the corporals will become a sergeant? 9 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's not fair to 11 assume that? 12 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So they're just going 14 to eventually go away? Or -- 15 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes. That's -- that's 16 all I can do, okay. Now, I don't -- they're good employees; 17 I have no problem with them. In fact, one of them just 18 finished peace officer's academy and everything else, but 19 not the one who is going to be the trainer and to fill in as 20 a supervisor. So, at this point, they are in that position 21 as a corporal, because it was already there. I don't feel 22 it's fair to say tomorrow morning, "You're no longer a 23 corporal," or -- or try and come up with some way to take 24 that rank away from them. They are good employees, so I 25 just have to -- to bear with those two. 129 1 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: If and when they move 2 on, you would replace those with jailer positions? 3 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I'd hate -- it sounds 4 like I'm trying to get them to move on. 5 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: No. 6 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: But -- I don't want to 7 lose these -- these two employees, but yes, if -- if they 8 move up to a supervisor position later -- 9 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right. 10 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: -- or things like that, 11 then I will not replace them with corporals, because the 12 corporal position will go bye-bye. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. 15 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second -- third. 16 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner Letz, 17 second by Commissioner Baldwin, that the Court approve 18 creating one additional sergeant position in the jail and 19 eliminating corporal ranking of two positions and 20 reclassifying them as jailer positions. Any further 21 questions or comments? If not, all in favor, raise your 22 right hand. 23 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 24 JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. 25 (No response.) 130 1 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Number 11, 2 consider and discuss authorizing Kerr County Sheriff's 3 Department to request funds for video equipment from the 4 D.P.S. 5 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Under the new 6 legislation that -- in the last election, where the State of 7 Texas passed the bond issues for the entire state, and 8 because of the new legislation requiring all departments to 9 start keeping records on racial profiling -- and, in fact, 10 we have to submit them to y'all by March of each year. One 11 of the other things is, this is trying to recommend that 12 departments go to video cameras in all their vehicles so 13 that they can record all these stops. It lessens the 14 requirements on the actual documentation they have to keep, 15 because they have video cameras. D.P.S. is the one that was 16 put in charge by the Legislature, that if that bond issue 17 passed, which it did, then they would offer grants to the 18 rural areas and the smaller departments and everybody, and 19 to try and help them fund video cameras in all their cars. 20 Now, we were very fortunate; we got a grant last year that 21 did fund video cameras in most of our cars. I still have 22 six cars that do not have video cameras in them, and we are 23 wishing to apply to D.P.S. for grant funding to fund those 24 six video cameras so that we can have them in every one of 25 our cars. This is not a matching fund grant or anything 131 1 else. It's just, we're applying for it. Every agency in 2 the state's probably applying for it, and hopefully we'll 3 get some of them. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 6 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: This is the form that 7 the Judge would have to sign. 8 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner 9 Baldwin -- Williams, second by Commissioner Letz, that the 10 Court authorize Kerr County Sheriff's Department to request 11 funds for video equipment from the Texas Department of 12 Public Safety, and authorize County Judge to sign same. Any 13 questions or comments? If not -- 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Comment. Actually, 15 this is our tax dollars. It's not like they're doing us a 16 favor; it's our money. And, number two, it's funny that we 17 buy them radars and they buy us cameras. 18 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: They're not buying us 19 cameras yet. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We said we weren't 21 going to buy them any radars. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Historically. 23 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: They're not buying us 24 cameras yet. There's some unfunded mandates that came out 25 through that legislative session that's going to cost us 132 1 more in the end. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm sure. 3 JUDGE HENNEKE: Any additional questions or 4 comments? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand. 5 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 6 JUDGE HENNEKE: Opposed, same sign. 7 (No response.) 8 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Are you 9 done? 10 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I'm done. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Praise God. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Took 30 minutes to get 13 through with you, Rusty. 14 JUDGE HENNEKE: Item Number 13, consider and 15 discuss day for joint meeting in January with the Kerrville 16 City Council. The dates that have been proposed are 17 January 29th, 30th, and/or 31st. Does anyone have any 18 preference or any comments? 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You're talking about a 20 nighttime meeting -- 21 JUDGE HENNEKE: Yes. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- over there? Let me 23 ask a question. I don't have a preference, to answer your 24 question. 25 JUDGE HENNEKE: Go ahead with your question. 133 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. Our last 2 meeting over there, the City was very -- was nice enough to 3 provide a lunch for us. Do we have any way to do that, 4 other than coming out of our own pockets? I mean, it would 5 be our turn, kind of. 6 JUDGE HENNEKE: Not that I'm aware of. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Would this be a 8 meeting -- what are the days, 29, 30, 31? What days of the 9 week are they? 10 JUDGE HENNEKE: Tuesday, Wednesday, and 11 Thursday. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Tuesday happens to be 13 their regular meeting? 14 JUDGE HENNEKE: No. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I kind of agree with 16 Commissioner Baldwin, we ought to figure out a way -- 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is there any of that 18 barbecue left over today? Let's put it in the freezer. 19 JUDGE HENNEKE: The 31st has been suggested, 20 which is a Thursday night, as the best night. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's a good night. 22 JUDGE HENNEKE: Now, we can put our heads 23 together and see if we can come together with some funds to 24 buy some refreshments. I mean, there is no money. There's 25 no statutory -- statutory authorized money for entertainment 134 1 of that kind, so -- 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What time of night 3 would we be meeting? 4 JUDGE HENNEKE: I would -- I guess we'd start 5 at 6:30. Part of the discussion is not to have it during 6 the day so that it can be more open-ended in the event we 7 really want to get into some things. When we had it before, 8 we actually ran out of time, when we had it at lunchtime 9 from -- I believe it was from 11:30 to 1:30 p.m. 10 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: They normally have 11 their meetings at 6:00, don't they? 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Pardon? 13 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I thought their 14 evening meetings were at 6:00. 15 JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, the idea would be -- 16 perhaps we can have it at 6:00 -- we can bump it back a 17 little bit so people can have an opportunity to eat dinner 18 and get back in if they want to. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Who -- we can probably 20 figure out a way to get food over there, I imagine. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's -- see, that's 22 a big item here, isn't it? We're not worried about the 23 agenda. 24 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Turn it over to the 25 food guru. 135 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: With meat connections. 2 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: 31st is fine. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 31st at 6:00? Doesn't 4 matter. 5 JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. 6 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Why don't we authorize 7 the County Judge to negotiate the time? 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 6:00, 6:30. 9 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And make it on the 10 31st, and let us know. 11 JUDGE HENNEKE: All right. 12 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So moved. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 14 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner 15 Griffin, second by Commissioner Letz, that we request the 16 joint meeting on January 31st in the evening, 6:00 or 6:30, 17 and authorize County Judge to set the exact date and time -- 18 exact time. Any further questions or comments? If not, all 19 in favor, raise your right hand. 20 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 21 JUDGE HENNEKE: Opposed, same sign. 22 (No response.) 23 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. If anyone 24 has any specific agenda items they want, I mean, Ron 25 Patterson and I are working up a list that includes the 136 1 airport, the Youth Exhibition Center and things like that, 2 ETJ. But, if anyone has any specific items they want to 3 make sure that get on, please let me know. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Am I going to have the 6 opportunity to tell them how goofy it is to take over the 7 state park? 8 JUDGE HENNEKE: Hopefully that won't be on 9 the agenda, since it's not a joint concern. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm going to do it 11 anyway. 12 JUDGE HENNEKE: Exercise your freedom of 13 speech. Item number 14, consider and discuss establishing a 14 maximum amount of $2,400 per year that can be deposited in 15 each employee's unreimbursed medical expenses account under 16 the new optional medical insurance benefit plan. This is a 17 request from Bryan Finley. He said we need to establish a 18 maximum, and he recommends $2,400, or $200 a month. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 21 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner 22 Williams, second by Commissioner Letz, that the Court 23 establish a maximum amount of $2,400 per year that can be 24 deposited in each employee's unreimbursed medical expenses 25 account. Any questions or comments? 137 1 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Question. And I'm in 2 favor of it, but -- if that's what Brian recommends. My 3 question is, what is the reason for having a maximum? Not 4 that it makes any difference to -- 5 JUDGE HENNEKE: I think it's an I.R.S. reg 6 that you have to establish a maximum. 7 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: A maximum. 8 JUDGE HENNEKE: Sheriff? 9 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: What happens -- since 10 the employees have already been through that and already had 11 to sign up and return their deal and that commits them for a 12 full year, what's going to happen if some of those employees 13 did elect already to go with more than that? Since that 14 maximum wasn't in there before? 15 JUDGE HENNEKE: Then we'd bring it back and 16 adjust it. But I am told that no one has come to that 17 level. 18 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I didn't -- I don't 19 know, but I -- 20 JUDGE HENNEKE: That's a pretty big -- pretty 21 big bite. I don't know what level of participation we got 22 in the plan. What -- how was it received out at the 23 department? 24 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, we made it 25 mandatory that everybody go through it. 138 1 JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, everybody had to go 2 through the meeting, because they had to do a new form. 3 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: One of the biggest 4 issues that came up, which I was not even aware of over all 5 the years, is on the -- on the current plan that we're on, 6 if you had spouse or -- or kids on it, you could actually 7 have that -- that amount that the employee is paying. Like, 8 for me, with my child, it's $81 every two weeks that I -- 9 that comes out of my -- I could have, for all these years, 10 been having that $81 come out pre-tax, that I never knew 11 that, okay? So I paid it post-tax, where it would have 12 actually only been costing me about $60 every two weeks 13 instead of $81 if I'd known that it was -- could have -- we 14 had had the option to have it pre-tax. Evidently, that 15 option's been there for -- but employees didn't know it. 16 That was -- I think a lot of them showed a lot of other 17 interest in possibly the -- the savings-type deal, the 18 medical part y'all are setting a cap on. I don't know how 19 many elected to go through it. The session I sat through 20 with them, there was a lot of questions asked of Mr. Finley, 21 a lot of good input, and a lot of good feedback. It went 22 real well, and even though employees went in there at first 23 saying, "I ain't going to change nothing; I'll just leave 24 it," you know, "They're always offering us this junk and 25 everything." By the time they left the meeting, I think he 139 1 really had some people's attention, and it got a good 2 reception. Whether they elected to take whatever, I don't 3 know. 4 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I think that happened 5 in all the sessions. 6 JUDGE HENNEKE: I personally think this is 7 the kind of thing we won't get a great deal of participation 8 this year, but after a year or two, if we continue with the 9 program, people will see the potential and be more involved. 10 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And then there's the 11 deal with the dental -- actual dental insurance, which is 12 available now that -- that nobody knew. I think that got a 13 lot of people's attention. And I just see one of the 14 biggest -- and I planned on getting with Barbara later, that 15 if I can get educated myself on what all the different plans 16 and options are for -- for employees, that we can -- the 17 department heads can possibly, when you hire an employee or 18 have a new one, actually educate them to what all the 19 options are. They're not getting that anywhere. Okay? On 20 the different -- like, the pre-tax and that. 21 JUDGE HENNEKE: Let's vote on the motion. 22 Anybody have any questions? If not, all in favor, raise 23 your right hand. 24 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 25 JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. 140 1 (No response.) 2 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Gentlemen, I 3 don't think we have anything else. 4 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Do the snowman. 5 JUDGE HENNEKE: I'd remind us of the -- 6 snowman one more time -- we have a meeting the 31st at 7 9 o'clock. I'll remind everyone also that we've asked that 8 your evaluations of the department heads be in, in sealed 9 envelopes, by the end of the year. Okay? That's it. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Merry Christmas. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Merry Christmas. Ho, 12 ho, ho. 13 (Discussion off the record.) 14 (Commissioners Court adjourned at 2:15 p.m.) 15 - - - - - - - - - - 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 141 1 STATE OF TEXAS | 2 COUNTY OF KERR | 3 The above and foregoing is a true and complete 4 transcription of my stenotype notes taken in my capacity as 5 County Clerk of the Commissioners Court of Kerr County, 6 Texas, at the time and place heretofore set forth. 7 DATED at Kerrville, Texas, this 31st day of December, 8 2001. 9 10 11 JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk 12 BY: _________________________________ Kathy Banik, Deputy County Clerk 13 Certified Shorthand Reporter 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25